| 0 |
Subject: Today Our Civilization was Attacked......Aftermath
Posted by: Matt S
- Donor [57543213] Wed, Sep 12, 02:04
The other thread was getting a little long.
A new day deserves a new thread.
Here's to having a better one than yesterday! Good Luck! |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 132 | Doug
ID: 0737311
Wed, Sep 12, 21:00
|
Sarge, I couldn't disagree with you more wholeheartedly (though respectfully).
Just because the planning began years ago, doesn't necessarily mean nothing happened recently to precipitate it. The US military all sorts of plans as to how we would move into Korea, Iraq, or other global hotspots, and should something occur that we feel we need to get involved militarily, then we act on those plans (adjusting of course for the particular circumstances). But we don't move in for no reason.
I see know reason to believe that the terrorists are any less calculating in their actions. They do not have the same resources available to them, so they "improvise" and concoct plans such as those that were executed yesterday. It MAY be the case that the timing was purely logistical, but can you give me any possible reason why 9/11 would have been more logistically efficient for such an operation than 9/18 would have been? Same flights, same routes, same times... The only reason I can come up with would be if this had been an inside job, and certain pilots or crew members had all been scheduled to work today. I don't believe this was the case at all, however, from all indications of cell phone conversations, etc... in fact it appears the crew may even have helped thwart one of the attack attempts. It would seem to me on the surface that the plans were more or less in place, as you say, years in advance, and therefore that whoever's in charge (presumably bin Laden) was finally motivated to say "now".
So to categorically state that this date was selected for logistical reasons and nothing happened recently to precipitate it seems extraordinarily presumptuous to me in the absence of evidence to support that claim.
Furthermore, I think there is great significance in debating the topic, because I think these are exactly the sorts of questions we need to understand the answers to. The best way to prepare to deal with any given enemy is to first understand how and why he operates, not to throw up are hands and say "Gee, I don't know why they did that". And not to get to the general "because they hate us" answers, but deeper... WHY do they hate us answers... what are our specific policies and actions are abroad that generate this sort of response? The answers won't come easy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try. As the old cliche goes, those who don't understand history (even recent history) are doomed to repeat it.
|
| 133 | 6-9 With The Afro
ID: 318551020
Wed, Sep 12, 21:08
|
Mike D 129: Very nice. I need to get a flag for my car. All of us need to make sure that any image that can be seen overseas shows our flag flying high and proud.
|
| 134 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Wed, Sep 12, 21:17
|
anyone with Microsoft flight simulator can fly that mission , (or train) with any type of plane...its practically a blueprint for NY/eastern seaboard.
|
| 135 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 117541522
Wed, Sep 12, 22:11
|
For those flying the flag please read up on how to fly it correctly.
Flag dos and donts
May seem unimportant to some but the flag is something to be respected and if it is flown do it the right way.
|
| 136 | Matt S
Donor
ID: 57543213
Wed, Sep 12, 22:13
|
Puckprophet - I think I saw the same feature on Global TV Canada about the MS Flight simulator.
It showed how you can download an add-on to learn how to fly a 757, you can start at the same Boston airport, and have the same Los Angeles destination, and you can crash into the WTC just as it happened. Somebody doing this hundreds of times, would easily get the distances, and other calculations down to a tee. Easy training.
Chilling
Matt S
|
| 137 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Wed, Sep 12, 23:09
|
Looks like they took the time to train on actual planes, from the FBI tonight. No knock on MS Simulator, but there's nothing like training on the real thing, it seems.
pd
|
| 138 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Wed, Sep 12, 23:13
|
Re the date chosen, a few observations:
1) From what I have read of Bin Laden and his terrorist attempts, his operations are years in the planning and get scrubbed if anything goes wrong. This link posted earlier by Khahan, from msnbc, is quite enlightening. This article is chilling, in that (with things like this taking years to plan) it would indicate that many future acts of terror ARE ALREADY BEING PUT INTO PLACE.
2) It is obvious that they wanted a day with the offices full. So, they want September, after summer vacations are over.
3) They want Mon-Fri, same reason.
4) They want a semi-empty plane, so Tuesday is best day as noted above (post 116). From my travel experience, some airlines give better fares on Tuesdays in an attempt to try to overcome the low demand on that day.
5) The FIRST Tuesday in September was the day after Labor Day, so possible congestion on plane similar to a Monday. Also possibility of people taking an "extra day off" and not filling the towers.
CONCLUSION: the first OPTIMUM day, for their purposes, would be Tues the 11th. No historical significance, no "message" to that date, just the practical outworking of the first (and thus best) date that meets their criteria and promises maximum damage. Everybody back to work after summer vacations, everybody back to work after Labor Day, light capacity on air travel, and the "first available day after summer" - all those add up to the 11th.
Note also that, once they are "ready", then the FIRST optimum day for them will be the BEST, given their willingness to scrap the whole thing if needed.
|
| 139 | Khahan
ID: 567232217
Wed, Sep 12, 23:25
|
Excellent points Gump. While many looks at religious reasons, proving points etc are worth considering, I think its a good idea to look at the simplest reasons first.
The simplest explaination is that this was the first optimum day.
.
On another topic, I just read in another forum somebody saying we should '..catch whoever responsible and lock them up for their entire life.'
I was dumbfounded.
|
| 140 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Wed, Sep 12, 23:32
|
Doug (rwef post 132): I don't mean to state definitively that the date was selected purely for logistical reasons. Why 9/11 and not 9/18? Because that would have meant having the cell in place too long perhaps? The longer the cell members are here, the greater the chance of their discovery and therefore apprehension before the mission can be executed. Just a 'for example' to answer your question.
On the surface, I'd agree entirely that we need to try and understand the mind of the terrorist. In practice however, this is virtually impossible. Why? Because their thought processes are totally different from yours and mine. We think in terms of repercussions/consequences and the like. It's unavoidable, since it's the way we were raised and the method of deduction we were taught since we were old enough to begin to truly analyze that which we took in via our senses. The terrorist is different from the very outset. His/hers is largely a religious/societal difference to a degree which we are unable to even comprehend. They truly believe (the cell members at any rate), that by committing suicide while attacking the Great Satan, their place in Heaven is assured. For whatever twisted reasons, they have determined that the U.S. is this Great Satan. To debate logically, that if we are so 'evil', why do they send their children to our colleges and universities, makes no difference. Bin Ladin was U.S. educated, as were most of the terrorist leadership around the globe. Yet he insists that we are evil incarnate. What I have begun to believe after working this arena for a number of years, is that the terrorist leadership is nomore a fanatic than you or I. What he/she is, is manipulative/egomaniacal and 200 yrs ago probably would have been a 'great leader' in an emerging nation. Bringing it to military power and conquering its neighbors. In todays world however, there is no room for such action. Hence, those who would make themselves into a global power, must do so via these types of means. Times have changed however. Expansion through conquest is no longer acceptable. Hitler found this out.
The world can no longer afford to allow such militaristic attitudes to prevail. 400 yrs ago, 10,000 would die in a single battle. Only because each 'side' brought 10,000 to the battlefield to begin with. War was difficult to engage in. Men were better use to the King, working in the fields than on the battlefield. With technological advancement however, we can still inflict casualty counts of 10,000. Now though, we only need a few people to get that job accomplished. Because so few, are capable of wreaking so much destruction, the world has come to realize that such cannot be tolerated.
In order though for a few to do this, planning, meticulous, long term, rehearsed planning is required. To assume that Bin Ladin does not have training resources which would rival our own military's...is a fatal error in judgement. His people train in urban and building assault...using the same training methods as our own Special Forces personnel. His 'sharpshooter' practice, using the same techniques as our city SWAT does.His bomb squads, are every bit as adept at bomb manufacture and detonation, as any Navy SEAL. Realistically, I have little doubt that this idea has grown over something along a 5 yr period. (Total time from first conception to execution.) Think about what it would take. From first having the notion. Then you start to think about the how. Then you consider what would be required. Manpower, equipment, skill sets, documentation, housing, transportation, training etc etc etc. This was no haphazard, gee...now the U.S. has REALLY pi$$ed me off so I'm gonna do 'this' to them now...kind of thing. This was started a long, long time ago and is very close to what Bin Ladin has been working toward for his entire adult life.
|
| 141 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Wed, Sep 12, 23:34
|
Great post, Gump.
Khahan, there is a point behind not letting those who did this take the coward's way out in letting us kill them right away. After all, many terrorists believe that their deaths at the hands of their enemies only makes their heavenly ascent come that much more quickly.
I've always felt that life-in-prison without possibility of release is certainly a harsher penalty for the guilty, and continues to allow them to be used as examples for others as long as they live. These people do not value life, even their own. They should not have the ability to choose their own punishment, particularly the easy way out.
pd
|
| 142 | wildyams/katietx
ID: 3483513
Wed, Sep 12, 23:36
|
Perm...they can believe whatever they want regarding their death in a holy war. We know where they will be...and it won't be sitting at the feet of Allah!
|
| 143 | steve houpt
ID: 208461016
Wed, Sep 12, 23:37
|
Great post KKB #105.
I listened to the questions at Ari Fleischers press briefing today. Went looking for the nerf balls to throw at TV .
My questions to the press - Why do not have to engage your brain before you ask a question? Is asking any question any time better than occasionally asking a good question?
Today is only Wednesday. They acted like, hey the 4 hijacked planes had crashed. What did you know that made you think there was still a threat?
How many here felt sure everything was OVER after gearing a plane crashed in PA? And even when they reported all planes 'were' accounted for?
|
| 144 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Wed, Sep 12, 23:38
|
with bin laden reputed to have 60 pilots ,(an ample teaching force) , and numerous hands-on trainees , it's no wonder they were pinpoint accurate...
|
| 145 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Wed, Sep 12, 23:39
|
PD-This was NOT a crinminal act, deserving of juris-prudence and due process. This was an act of war. I do not recall as a soldier, ever having to 'prove guilt' on the part of the enemy before I fired upon them. Neither will we here. Drop the entire notion of a trial. The only trial they will get...is one by fire. Trust me on this.
|
| 146 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Wed, Sep 12, 23:51
|
Sarge, of course I don't trust you to lay out a logical process! If, for example, the person behind this happens to be a head of state, our own laws and international treaties to which we belong prohibit us from their assasination. We be obliged to make efforts at catching them and bringing them to trial. We're not all grunts here.
katiex, while I tend to agree, it's probably not wise to get involved in differences of religious belief, no matter what we think about someone else's.
pd
|
| 147 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Thu, Sep 13, 00:01
|
i say 'Put Sarge In Charge'...
|
| 148 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 51392423
Thu, Sep 13, 01:29
|
PD, post 127. Good points. I imagine that was just something that seemed like a personal slap in the face to me, not the likely thought process behind the day - if there was one.
|
| 149 | Doug
ID: 0737311
Thu, Sep 13, 01:31
|
I'm a patriotic American Christian, but I feel the need to state that I find the attitude expressed in the brief post #142 hypocritical, narrowminded, and offensive... it literally sickens my stomach, as it assumes the same sort of religious/moral righteousness and superiority as that espoused by the perpetrators of this act of war. I realize it's just rhetoric, but this is why people hate Americans. For example, if you were just to flip flop the perspective the author to that of a terrorist, you might end up with words like "the people of the Great Satan can believe whatever they want regarding the righteousness of their cause. We know where they will be...and it won't be sitting at the feet of Allah!" Most of us would condemn such ignorant statements, so why would we make analagous statements ourselves? Note that I'm making absolutely NO judgement as to your personal morality, and not at all comparing YOU to THEM, etc... I presume you are a decent and civilized individual. It's just that find the oversimplified "we're right, you're wrong, so there" attitude to be so maddening and disturbing on either side of the political/religious/moral fence. I realize I'm expressing myself strongly here, and I'm sorry to single out that one post because there have been others as well... but I just felt so compelled to at least share my two cents.
F Gump... thanks for reposting that link... excellent reading. I especially appreciate your analysis as to the choice of the 9.11 date... that's exactly the type of thing I was looking for. I had figured not last Tuesday because of Labor Day, but hadn't considered August vacations. I still wonder if there may have been some precipitating event, but yours is by far the most plausible theory I've encountered.
Sarge, I think we're mostly on the same page, but on the one hand you say that it's virtually impossible to understand the mind of a terrorist, but then proceed to provide just such an explanation. It all seemed pretty clear to me and not at all that hard to understand. And just because I understand their mentality (at least in part) certainly doesn't mean I agree with it. I mean, I think I can basically understand the mentality of a mass murderer, white supremacists, and all sorts of other freaks if it is explained to me. Terrorists are no different. It's just a matter of grasping their paradigm... that America is the Great Satan, the importance of dying for their cause, etc. Something that ordinarily seems completely illogical to me actually can make sense when looked at in that light. So I don't think such understanding is virtually impossible, it just requires a willingness to drop your own set of moral/rational assumptions about the world while you attempt to stand in another's shoes. Thanks for the insights that you did in fact provide, they were helpful.
Anyway, there's no doubt that the desire to act against the US has been on OBL's agenda for a long time, and that this attack was just the latest in a line of attacks (some thwarted), and that plans for future attacks are already in place. It's just a question of whether and when they will be executed, and given that, you can see why I'd want to attempt to understand the specific motivation for the execution and timing of this latest one, as I expect there will be more to come. Obviously, this is the really much more the realm of intelligence professionals, and I'm playing armchair CIA analyst, but I think to be an informed citizen it's a good intellectual exercise to at least consider these things (and once again, props to Gump and sarge for sharing their takes on it)
|
| 150 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 51392423
Thu, Sep 13, 01:57
|
Doug, if you aren't clear in your belief in your own 'political/religious/moral fence' my sincerest sympathy goes out to you. It is my strong belief, strong enough that I would lay my life down to defend it, that a country or people that would commit an act of out-and-out terrorism like this is clearly on the wrong side of the 'political/religious/moral fence'. Be outraged all you want, I'm more concerned that you are apparently not secure enough in your beliefs. There is no gray area here. If you are a 'patriotic American Christian' or a Christian of any kind - then you know that they are wrong, no ifs, and or butts. No gray areas here.
It isn't arrogance. It IS belief in the Bible, which you obviously don't have much of. That's what offends ME, not that you don't seems to have strong belief in the Bible (that's your choice), but that you labeled yourself as a Christian. What is offensive is someone pretending to have strong beliefs and then be unwilling to walk with boldness upon them, and comparing those that do walk boldly on beliefs you claim to share to those that walk upon beliefs that you know are wrong.
|
| 151 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 578261
Thu, Sep 13, 02:19
|
I've been following this discussion for the past 2 days, and appreciate all of the news, insights, and discussions of my fellow board members. The following article says what I've been thinking about how to deal with this tragedy as well as any I've read, and I wanted to pass it along.
Don't let our values become casualties, too...
|
| 152 | Madman
ID: 68361122
Thu, Sep 13, 02:59
|
Missed a lot of this. Two points / counter-points . . .
a) Like biliruben, I am very confused and concerned about the notion that the terrorists had a credible attack plan to disable Air Force One. True or false, this was a disconcerting point that I still cannot explain. I pray that it was mentioned for noble and not nefarious reasons.
b) Quote from Beezer's article: "Blaming any one national or religious group for the wrongdoing of a small number of its members would be as foolish today as it would have been, in 1945, to try to punish all the Germans."
I cannot disagree more. The notion of international courts of laws will be used against us and our values; the only question is when. Although it is appealing to claim that there are moralistic components to international law, the fact of the matter is that might makes right on that level. If Japan had won the war, FDR/Truman would have been hung for their war crimes.
Instead of this approach which calls for us to impose our moralistic structure on the world through an artificially constructed puppet "court system", I think we should simply and boldly state that this was an attack on our culture. Like all cultures in existence, we reserve the right to defend our culture using force, just like our enemies claim the right to attack our culture using force.
It is a fact of life that nations are held accountable because of the actions of a few leaders. Almost comically, however, this is a fact denied in Ms. Cobban's piece. By attempting to draw our focus to the post-war resolution of the WWII crisis, she is hoping that we'll forget that it was an unweilding defense of our culture that allowed those "war criminals" to be brought to justice to begin with. FDR didn't say "We shall root out Hitler's henchmen and bring them to justice for this unprovoked declaration of war". No, he said "We'll bring them to their knees" (paraphrased). Only THEN did legal considerations take pre-eminence.
She basically argues that we should not engage in a war to bring future war criminals to justice. I applaud her pacifistic notions, but question the logical connectedness of her own work.
In this case, we know that the slave-trading Sudanese government has been involved in harboring and supporting terrorist activities that have resulted in American civilians dying. We called that an act of war when it occurred, and we should have the guts to back that rhetoric up with real force (i.e., something more substantial than the bombing of an aspirin factory).
Similarly, if there appears to be a strong Iraqi or Sudanese or Afghan or whomever (all via bin Laden) connection to this action, we should leave all attack options open regarding that nation-state. The actions of a few misguided leaders should INDEED be sufficient reason to engage in a a war against a nation.
Or, for another likely scenario, if the Taliban were involved, we should consider sending billions of dollars of military equipment and hardware to their mortal enemies (assuming we can't / don't go in ourselves). Everything should be on the table.
Thus, contrary to Ms. Cobban, I see no reason to hold a hand of friendship out to the people and organizations that have implicitly and/or explicitly supported, supplied, and funded those who have attacked us so viciously. The idea that we must avoid collateral damage and overkill is an idea that the terrorists are relying on us to play. They perceive it to be one of our many moral weaknesses that will eventually allow them to vanquish our culture. They may be right.
Basically, I think we should simply given the Taliban, Sudanese, Iraqui's and anyone else who has engaged in terrorist activities against us over the past 4 years an ultimatum to immediately cease and desist their attempts to destroy us. And if they refuse to co-operate, they should be made to pay dearly. And that will inevitably result in collateral damage and many thousands of innocents dying, unfortunate though that may be.
|
| 153 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 51392423
Thu, Sep 13, 03:13
|
Well said, Madman.
|
| 154 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 578261
Thu, Sep 13, 03:41
|
Good post Madman. I won't presume to speak for Ms. Cobban, but I think the primary point that she was attempting to make is that if we do decide to take military action against the Talibad, Iraq, or any other group, we have to not only make sure that their leadership is taken out of command, we also have to address the conditions that led to their being in command in the first place.
Killing the masterminds and even the organizations that are most likely behind this plot, taking away the war-making capability of any countries that harbored this evil, and doing everything in our power to prevent them having the capability to hurt us again will only make the resolve of those that hate us stronger, unless we try to address those issues that lead to such anger and hate. We made a mistake after WWI of leaving the Germans to fend for themselves, and we will make an equally grave error if we exact our revenge and then do nothing to assist those that remain to pick up the pieces. Even if they are unable to strike back today, there always comes a time when those that want revenge badly enough will take it. And with the rate of technological change, that price may be the end of all civilization as we know it.
Honestly, I don't even know where to begin in terms of a long-term solution to this problem, because the roots of it are thousands of years old. However, if we don't make a sustained effort once we have made our retribution to reshape the attitudes of those that hate us, the cycle of violence will continue and escalate. The sons and daughters of the WWI generation had to pay a horrible price for letting the seeds of hate fester; our children and grandchildren will have to bear the fruits of our seeds sown today. What shall they reap?
|
| 155 | Madman
ID: 68361122
Thu, Sep 13, 04:15
|
Beezer -- maybe your interpretation of her primary point is the one she tried to make. I didn't read it that way, obviously, since your interpretation is more reasoned, IMO.
Like you, however, I don't see any effective means of convincing the average person in these countries to not hate the U.S. It's too deeply imbedded, at least for the time being.
However, there are some things we can strive to do:
a) even without dismantling the governments who harbor terrorists, make it so costly to do so that they will choose not to. This can be a combination of repeated, random military attacks. Or maybe inroads with moderate Muslim nations that apply costly peer pressure. Whatever.
b) Ensure that U.S.-friendly dictators take over. It IS possible to have the government be more moderate to the U.S. than the people (i.e., Saudi Arabia). And although even Saudi Arabia keeps information from us, as far as I know, they aren't actively supporting these groups (I HOPE).
c) getting involved on the side of moderate Muslims in civil wars and other political conflicts -- aiding their ascension to power. Reagan tried (pathetically, it turned out) to do that with Iran in the mid 1980's. We could do it with anti-Taliban forces, the rebels in Sudan, etc. At least this would drain the governments that are hostile to us.
d) We'll have to carefully define "victory" here. There is little hope of living in a world where terrorist actions against the U.S. never happen. But maybe we can get involved in certain countries and prevent THEM from getting involved against us. Taking out a piece here and a piece there. Not a great long-term solution, but we are now at a cross-roads, I think.
Right now, we can either sit by and take the status quo, and continue to embolden terrorists. Yeah, we may launch 50 cruise missiles from time to time at one of their training facilities to "send a message" but that'll do. This is basically the "peace" will win out approach that I had interpreted Cobban to be advocating.
Or, we can say enough is enough. Yes, they may continue to launch attacks against us. And yes, this may cause our gas prices to skyrocket. And yes, we may be risking all of our economic prosperity (i.e., if an oil embargo were to really hit). But right now, the terrorists, although becoming emboldened, don't have the resources to strike at us directly. Therefore, this paradigm says that even if we know we may not win, we must fight now, with everything we've got (note: diplomatic assets AND military ones) to defend ourselves.
Honestly, I don't know that I have a lot of confidence that we can do the second action. I question our resolve as a nation. Not today, but two years from now. Or 5 years from now. Just three days ago, intelligence budgets were (in effect) being raided as part of an attempt to protect an imaginary "lock box". And for the last 25 years we've refused to engage in humanitarian intelligence because of the concurrent moral qualms. These goals and concerns will again raise up. Will our desire to continue the fight against an invisible enemy remain strong? What if we have to suffer prolonged economic hardship? Especially when the alternative -- caving in -- will appear increasingly attractive. Even today, I heard some on TV that we should abandon Israel and other positions that are unpopular in the Muslim world. The allure of peace will be strong. And a "war" requires us to sometimes be on the offensive -- taking pre-emptive action that will be relatively hard to sell to a weary population.
I don't know. I'd like to think our leaders would be wise enough to act in our long-term strategic best interests, and stay the course required by option 2. But, I'm then reminded that these are the next generation descendants of leaders that put us in the current situation . . . and my faith becomes troubled.
There are no easy answers. And maybe I should be basking in the patriotic fervor that is sweeping the country right now. But this issue is indeed quite complex. And the calls for moderation will soon come again; in some sense this sort of empathy and compassion is one of America's greatest traits. But in a fight against terrorism, it may also sadly prove to be our greatest weakness.
Only time will tell.
|
| 156 | Dan
Donor
ID: 45054169
Thu, Sep 13, 05:38
|
Thanks to everybody who sent in the info about the Google message board as it seems to have had some relevance!
FBI taps ISPs in hunt for attackers
|
| 157 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Thu, Sep 13, 06:16
|
PD et al: Please, listen to what our President is saying. Listen to the journalists and understand the signifigance of the word being deliberately chosen..."Act of WAR" Pres Bush is saying this over and over and over, for a very specific reason. WE ARE AT WAR. Make no mistake. When at war, you do NOT bother with juris prudence. You do not introduce a court room, its formalities, and its potential for acquittal. NATO invoked Chapter 5 of the Washington Treaty, essentially returning the Declaration of War. We are one world, with the majority of its peoples currently prepared to excercise substantial military force, in an organized, coordinated, multi-targeted operation. The French, British, Dutch, German, American, Saudi, Israeli, Greek, Italian, Canadian, Japanese, Russian, Egytian and other nations will all contribute either manpower, hardware, finances and or intelligence...and in multiple countries, there will be simultaneous military interventions at terrorist training/housing areas. A worldwide effort will be made in the not too terribly distant future, to eradicate the majority of the terrorist operations. There will be repercussions. Rest assured. However in the end, the state of the terrorist as we know them today, will be setback 20 yrs or more.
PD- Please. International law prohibits the assassination of heads of state. Sure does. *shrug* Won't be the first time international law was 'violated' for the sake of the good of mankind, damn sure won't be the last time either. I can state absolutely and for a definitive fact: Many of you, have NO CLUE, what our Intelligence network, covert operations organizations, have to do in order to get their jobs done. Perhaps this is for the best. It's not a c'clean' job with nice tidy rules in place. It's damn dirty work. And sometimes, it gets to be abit bloody too.
|
| 158 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Thu, Sep 13, 06:31
|
In response to Madman (post 152) and the general concept of how should/will the US respond ....
Here is the logical progression as I see it - I will make the (what seems to be apparent) conclusion that Bin Laden was behind this attack:
1) Bin Laden is a singular individual, yes.
2) He is harbored and protected by the Afghani leaders, however.
3) As such, they are taking de facto responsibility for his actions.
4) Thus, anything he does against the US must be construed as with the permission of the Afghani government itself.
Okay, let me elaborate on point 4 before continuing, cause this is the crux of what follows. If a country is ATTACKED MILITARILY (which is what this is) by outsiders, then whether or not those "outsiders" are OFFICIAL ATTACKERS or not is irrelevant. It is a military action, pure and simple. And those who protect them are in essence PROMOTING their actions (and the continuation thereof).
It is well documented that the US has previously been thwarted by the Afghani leaders in apprehending Bin Laden. So IF THEY (THE TALIBAN) CONTINUE at this point (again making the progression that he did indeed do this) then they will also be "the enemy" in this coming war.
Their alternate option: hand over Bin Laden. Or give our troops free access to enter their country and do so.
5) One other VITAL VITAL point to ponder. The US government at this point MUST take action (or, better stated: go to war). There has already been a MILITARY attack. And - this is crucial - to do NOTHING basically allows another, and another, and another. And our leaders are well aware that allowing "just one more" is unacceptable.
Additionally, no other country would be able to blithely "accept" such actions against their citizens either. So the US will have the full support of all industrialized countries.
SO, MY CONCLUSION:
The US will gather definitive evidence that Bin Laden was the guilty party. They will then go to the Taliban with an ultimatum. If the Afghans agree, the US troops enter and hunt down and take Bin Laden and his group - dead or alive. If not, the US declares war (with a huge alliance) against not only Bin Laden but Afghanistan itself, plus any supporters of it. PERIOD.
There is war coming. No way around it, the first attack has already been made. The only question at this point is who will choose to be on the other side.
|
| 159 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Thu, Sep 13, 06:36
|
F Gump: Your posy (I htink it was 138 where you defined the logical selection of 9/11) was as excellent a piece of deductive logic as I've seen in sometime. OUTSTANDING grasp on your part.
Diddo your post directly above. This is a WAR. People had better get used to that idea, because its too late for thinking in any other terms. Reality is reality, and the simple truth is...America is a nation at war. Fortunately, we are not alone.
|
| 160 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Thu, Sep 13, 06:55
|
that this child even understands the magnitude, is truly a sad statement indeed:
sad, but beautiful picture
|
| 161 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 4443038
Thu, Sep 13, 07:36
|
Geez. Two Amtrak trains have collided in Utah. no word yet on casualties
|
| 162 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910
Thu, Sep 13, 07:50
|
Myboyjack, CNN reports: 200 people aboard total; 3 overturned cars. No link to terrorist attacks at this point.
|
| 163 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Thu, Sep 13, 07:59
|
Unfortunately, KKB, Amtrak's safety record is such that they are likely to do more danage WITHOUT terrorist help, it seems.
|
| 164 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910
Thu, Sep 13, 08:05
|
F Gump, yeah, no lie. I was thinking the same thing. CNN Update: Part of I-80 shutdown due to Amtrak crash. Appears to be a freight train and an Amtrak train that crashed.
|
| 165 | WiddleAvi
ID: 9830119
Thu, Sep 13, 08:33
|
Doug - In response to post 149. No one is saying whose religion is the correct one. Maybe Allah is the god of the universe. But let me tell you one thing , whichever god is the "real" one he does not reward people for doing something like this. That I am sure about.
|
| 166 | 6-9 With The Afro
ID: 97969
Thu, Sep 13, 08:51
|
Right on, WiddleAvi.
|
| 167 | patjams
ID: 22858138
Thu, Sep 13, 09:30
|
Re: 152 - Excellent post Madman. The only thing I would add is that they've just had a hand in killing 10,000+ of our innocent countrymen and women, the time for ultimatums have passed. Fight fire with fire.
|
| 168 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Thu, Sep 13, 09:43
|
You murder innocent people and you go to heaven.
Behind many of the worlds most horrible events there has been religion.
|
| 169 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Thu, Sep 13, 09:58
|
WiddleAvi (165), while you and I might believe that God does not reward those who commit such acts, it's also true that, as a religious belief, there are those that feel they will be rewarded. Religious belief is just one area that there will never be agreement, particularly in something like this where religious belief is being used as justification for political beliefs.
Sarge, there's little to say to you here. You have chosen to be a grunt now, and that's fine. War is conducted on many levels: the common soldiers who do the real work, killing those they are told to kill, logistical and supplies, officers who plan and coordinate attacks, and the leaders who tell us when to start and stop shooting. The farther down you go, the fewer clues there are around.
While Bush has (correctly, IMO) included those who harbor with the terrorists themselves (if, indeed, they are different parties), our conduct when it comes to war against a state versus a war against stateless groups is different. We have greater tools at our disposal against a state, for instance, while at the same time are constrained from other actions
Sarge, ask yourself why Noriega wasn't just taken out by Reagan. Or why Hussein wasn't just taken out by Bush, Sr. While on your grunt level war might just seem like an indiscriminant shooting at the "bad guys," there are many other levels of war of which you are unaware, levels which are actually pulling the strings to which you've attached yourself.
pd
|
| 170 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 231045110
Thu, Sep 13, 10:07
|
My president has not inspired confidence in me during this crisis.
Personally, I think what was done, flying to Nebraska, was correct. Whether it was SOP or not, the president returning to Washington matters to me not one iota.
What does bother me is two things:
1 - that they didn't just say that this is SOP, instead of seemingly making up a story about a direct threat to AF1.
2 - Let me quote a NYT (sorry, Madman) article which had access to Rove's notes:
As Air Force One, flying north from Sarasota, crossed over the Florida Panhandle, Mr. Rove said, Mr. Bush made it clear that he wanted to go to Washington and nowhere else. That would have been sometime between 10 and 11 a.m., after planes had hit the two Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. The Pentagon attack, the third in the sequence, occurred at 9:45 a.m.
The other official said that Mr. Cheney was first told that the plane heading for the White House might be an airliner, private plane or helicopter loaded with explosives. But by the time Mr. Bush made his first request to return to Washington, which was rebuffed by the Secret Service, that plane was no longer any threat to the White House, since it had hit the Pentagon.
Another hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, plunged into a field southeast of Pittsburgh about 10:10 a.m., and word of that crash took some time to seep out. The security officers may still have considered it unaccounted for, and hence a threat, when they warned the president.
But at 1:25 p.m., Mr. Rove's notes show, Mr. Bush turned to his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., as Air Force One sat on the tarmac at Barksdale, and renewed his demand to return to Washington. Mr. Rove quoted him as saying, "The people of America will expect to see me and hear from me in Washington." But the president's words, Mr. Rove said, were "saltier."
Again Mr. Bush was rebuffed. By then the Pittsburgh crash was big news on the networks, and television anchors were starting to suggest, sometimes not very gently, that Mr. Bush was absent at a time of national crisis.
-------
My question: who exactly is in charge here? This makes it seem more than ever that dubya is being handled. He is taking, not giving orders. If he can't even command the secret service, how can we expect him to command our entire armed forces. The wrong president for the times is the only conclusion I can reach. This scares me. I hope I'm wrong.
|
| 171 | ivan
ID: 26850137
Thu, Sep 13, 10:23
|
biliruben - you are confusing thier job responsibilities, the Pres. job is to lead the us and "the free world" as popularly advertised.
while the secret service's job is to protect the President at all costs. this is not harrison ford we are talking about here. in matters of the Presidents safety, the sec. service holds trump, it may look odd at first but that is the breaks.
also how much confidince would running back to washington just in time to be killed have inspired?
and who's to say the president was not in danger?
just b/c the only weapons used were commercial airplanes, does not mean there were not 2ndary methods in place.
|
| 172 | patjams
ID: 22858138
Thu, Sep 13, 10:25
|
The Secret Service's number 1 priority is to insure the welfare of the President. It is within their power to keep the President out of harm's way if they believe there is a threat to his life. There were so many rumors circling that there were as many as 4 planes being unaccounted for that I believe they did the right thing. With the news that the plane that hit the Pentagon "circled the White House several times", I'd say that Bush being as far as possible from Washington was the right choice. Can you imagine if they had brought down the WTC AND killed the President? It's already catastrophic, but that would have sent the country down a path we need never travel.
|
| 173 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28861216
Thu, Sep 13, 10:39
|
Just started a new thread. This was taking too long to load up, and sometimes I would just get a blank page!
New thread
|
| 174 | steve houpt
ID: 208461016
Thu, Sep 13, 10:42
|
biliruben - you have stated from 20 Jan you have no confidence. Easy to look for reasons to keep that going. Heaven forbid Bush might do something that changed your mind.
Keep the other side going to keep me honest. :)
|
| 175 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 231045110
Thu, Sep 13, 10:44
|
Just to be very clear, as I have said several times before, I agree that not going to Washington was the correct decision. Period.
The events surrounding that decision just make me a bit nervous with regards to how our president (and/or his handlers) act in a time of crisis.
- If there was evidence of a direct threat to AF1, as they claimed, what was it?
- Is this insinuation of lack of leadership going to cloud or influence the very real and imminently important decisions he will be making in the near future? I hope not.
|
| 176 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 231045110
Thu, Sep 13, 10:45
|
Well before Jan 20th, Steve. ;)
|
| 177 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Thu, Sep 13, 10:47
|
lmao PD---I was one of those 'string' pullers you refer to. I was also on the end of the string being pulled. Unless and until you've been in combat, led and commanded other men in combat, shot and killed enemies of this nation while being shot at by them...PLEASE do NOT even pretend to tell me about the 'various levels' of war. I am all too painfully familiar with how many American lives were lost in Vietnam, because the 'political' level of war...had no friggin clue. Since you and I are going to disagree, and you feel as if you are on the moral high ground...let me simply say this and let it rest...the high ground you assume, is there for you to assume, because countless thousands like myself came before me on behalf of your right to assume said ground. Rather than debate military tactics with one who is intimately familiar with war, try thanking the men and women who have provided you the opportunity to sit on your throne in safety.
|
| 178 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Thu, Sep 13, 10:55
|
to all I say this: I've made my point clear. Right now I'm damned angry at BOTH the terrorist organizations and those insanely foolish people who honestly think negotiation/trial is the way to proceed...IF you get your way in the future, I for one am damn glad I'll be dead and gone before it happens. You however, I sincerely hope get to live until it does. Maybe then, once you're living under constant fear of execution for believing something you are no longer entitled to believe...just maybe, then you'll understand.
with that, I bid you adieu.
|
| 179 | steve houpt
ID: 208461016
Thu, Sep 13, 10:58
|
ALSO
- that they didn't just say that this is SOP, instead of seemingly making up a story about a direct threat to AF1.
Why is it seemingly making up a story? What intelligence do you have access to prove this is a made up story. First, I would not even answer the stupid questions from the press about why you went where you did.
Do you know the code word used to identify AF1? In fact it probably changes. I don't. A threat made against that code word was intercepted. The AG says they have credible evidence that AF1 was threatened. And he said in response to questions he will not answer any questions about anything about where they get their evidence or intelligence about anything.
This also from the NYT:
A threatening message received by the Secret Service was relayed to the agents with the president that "Air Force One is next." According to the high official, American code words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that made the threat credible.
Here is President's supposedly saltier comment. `I don't want some tinhorn terrorists keeping me out of Washington.'
|
| 180 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910
Thu, Sep 13, 11:06
|
I've posted a response to biliruben's "handled President" theory in the new continuation thread
|
| 181 | Madman
ID: 68361122
Sat, Sep 15, 01:07
|
I heard a source that claims the NYT article cited by biliruben was basically bunk, basically saying that those quotes by the President were taken baldly out of context. I can't find the original Times link, nor a refutation online (quickly), however. But the counter-story seems plausible -- namely that Bush was in a meeting, stated his desires, the Secret Service stated their concerns, and Bush changed his mind and decided to pursue "middle ground" path.
If this is true, then this would be yet another reason to not read the NYT when it comes to politics.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|