Will there be another "9/11" ?

IIRC, the suspected spy is an aide to Douglas Feith.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, you seem to be moving the goalposts. Your original argument (post 3) was a fairly utilitarian argument that the concern over 9/11 was disproportionate due to less fatalities than motorcycle accidents (I'm not sure your statistics are correct, but that's a side issue).Now you seem to be shifting to an argument that Americans were negligent in estimating the risk of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. This probably has an element of truth to it. But, it also undermines your argument that the post 9/11 concern with terrorism was dsisproportionate.SO, you assert we went from hypoconcerned to hyperconcerned. What, in your opinion, is the appropriate equilbrium point of concern about terrorism ? And what is your evidence of this ? Taliban ? Politico-military faction in control of most of...Afghanistan ? Central Asian state ? Materially supporting Al-Qaeda, including allowing Afghan territory to be used for staging and training? Sound familiar ?

No, I'm refuting your moving agruments. Right, because your argument for the significance of 9/11 was that the victims did not have a chance to accurately assess the risks of being where they were. I have shown that this was not so; they had ample evidence of risk, including a failed attack at the very same location, and regular Al-Queda activity around the globe. Well, on a scale from "not concerned enough", to "too concerned", as you've presented it, then the appropriate level is "just right."I don't know how to quantify concern, so I can't be more specific, sorry. 1) The way we did it before failed to prevent a major terror attack.2) What we're doing now has precipitated more terror attacks then there were before, as well as weakening our domestic security situation by the misuse of resources.That suggests to me, like it should to any reasonable person, that we've overcompensated and made the problem worse. How does any of that answer my questions? They were simple, so let me repeat:1) What nation attacked us on 9/11?2) For what military objective were we attacked?When you say "act of war", that has a specific meaning. It's incumbent on you to substantiate that that's an appropriate term for this situation.

"more terrorist attacks"--->"failed strategy" is a non sequitur.There are also more dead and captured terrorists than before 9/11. The forces of various nations are actively engaging terrorist groups, instead of ignoring the problem as before.IMO the proper approach to more terror attacks is more counter-terror operations. Not appeasement and surrender.Lest I be accused of presenting a false dilemma, please present elements of your proposed anti-terror strategy. However, your utilitarian argument that we should be more concerned about motorcycle accidents does not seem consistent with advocating a robust anti-terror campaign.You need to develop with additional evidence your contention that the current anti-terror strategy isn't working, or that an alternative strategy would've prevented Bali, the Spain train bombings, Beslan, etc.You also need to develop your contention that the current approach is a zero-sum game and domestic resources have necessarily been weakened. Asked and answered. We were attacked at military and civilian facilities by non-state forces (Al Qaeda) with state support (Afghanistan). At the very least, to force US withdrawal from the Middle East and cessation of support for Israel. Possibly, some elements of the enemy would be satisfied with nothing less than mass conversion of the US population to Islam and imposition of Sharia before ceasing to attack. Or perhaps having us all dead would do.OB original topic: Yes, there have been additional "9/11s" since the original (Bali,Spain, Beslan), and their certainly will be further attempts until the terrorists are prepared to surrender. This is a world war.

Not in the least, if the goal is to reduce the number of terror attacks, which it is. Ah, but there are also way, way more terrorists now than before 9/11. Sure, but that's not what we're doing.What we're doing is invading countries that have nothing to do with the terror attacks against us; what we're doing is diverting billions of dollars from improving domestic security. Oh, for god's sake. Only an idiot nationalist of the worst sort would suggest that examining the motives of terrorists and determing if they actually had legitimate concerns was "appeasement". How is it that you're so absolutely certain that there's nothing America is doing wrong?Anyway, how do you know it won't work? When have we ever tried it? So, no nation attacked us. There was no military objective. Then why did you characterize it as an act of war? Now it's clear that your views lack any connection to reality.

I almost wondered if the FBI was refering to Feith.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

By various, do you mean the US? Or by "ignoring the problem" did you mean terrorist groups targeting the US?The fact is the rest of the world had been engaged in anti-terror measures more than us for a long time now. This due to the fact that they were front and center or smack up against where terrorists were.That's why they had a much better track record of successes for fighting terror, even if they had failures now and then.The train bombing in spain was such a failure. Yet it cannot be denied they had been fighting terrorist bombings for some time. But perhaps you have never heard of ETA?I love when Americans finally get forced to be involved in something and then pretend like they are the "leaders" in it and everyone else has been lazy. It turns out the smoking cloud in N Korea was a nuke test. Being successful they shortly announce that they have several on the way to the US (or in the US already), and begin an invasion of S Korea.OrChina begins an invasion of Taiwan.OrPakistan begins an intensive campaign against India, and it is discovered that it has been playing a double game and is firmly behind the remainder of Al Queda (as it was discovered after the invasion of Iraq that Pakistan had already sold the WMD technology we didn't want sold).OrAfghanistan plunges into chaos as Warlords unite for a thorough drive against the government in Kabul, threatening not only the government, but our remaining forces (they only number 10K). That is in addition to a drive by AQ to also attack our forces.Tell me how we will afford to deal with these large issues that will take vast money and material resources, now that we have successfully drained the economy and still have further commitments in Iraq.Essentially we have pinned ourselves down in Iraq, and will not be able to get out (without endangering Iraq) to deal with other issues appropriately.This is why just about every neutral observer of this conflict stated that even if we wanted Saddam out of power, we were still taking it out of turn. Our first threat was well beyond him and had to be dealt with in a way that allowed our forces to be able to mobilize in case of other unforseen crises. Lame. But before I get into my answer let me say up front I was for the invasion of Afghanistan, though not in the manner we did it.AQ was a guest of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even the T did not fully rule Afghanistan which is why the only nation on earth to recognize it as the government was Pakistan (which helped put the Taliban together).Further the Taliban was busy trying to get money from the world, as well as take over the rest of Afghanistan and so DID NOT like 9/11. News reports said Omar was pissed when it turned out OBL had done this to him.But political alliances and culture meant he could not simply give up OBL or the AQ.It was the Taliban's refusal to aid in our pursuit of OBL and the AQ, including their threat to resist us with force, that made them an enemy we had to blow through.Frankly I hated those guys anyway and was glad they aligned themselves as they did.But none of this adds up to Afghanistan putting together an attack on the US. That derailed their gravy train.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I kind of like the conspiracy theorists believing the Muslim terrorist are being empowered by China, Russia, France, just pulling us both into a spiders web (wants America to be softened up in the Middle East, and to soften up the middle east)like a well planned dogfight unto the death), don't think it would matter, if Kerry was to be elected president he would be pulled into the conflict, (it seems to well planned)(Russia, China, would just stage another terrorist attack, using Muslim terrorists to insure its to the death (Kerry if elected though would open our soft side to the terrorist like maybe even drawing a bulleye, and they would be obliged cause to be drawing us to the death, cause they feel to die is virgins in paradise, that too them its a Holy Jihad, etc..., its really too bad, that Pat Buchanan was written off as a radical, he wanted an isolationist policy, etc...I don't see how we can refocus, within the World free trade where America is not soverign, we don't even have an energy policy, its quite interesting that the bible does say that if the Lord Jesus didn't return all flesh would be destroyed(like how many people are going to perish in the tribulation), etc...This message has been edited by whatever, 09-18-2004 04:52 AM

Other than Pakistan and some quarters of Iran and Saudi Arabia, I don't think anybody could be empowering Islamic extremists as a side goal to specifically weaken the US.However one might point out that nations who might have something to fear from US reprisals, now have the a US relatively tied down militarily. That means nations can take advantage of, not planned for, Islamic extermism. I wonder when you will ever deal with the major inconsistency in continually praising Pat Buchanan, at the same time you dismiss his current work which skewers Bush policies?If you THINK BUCHANAN IS RIGHT you CANNOT LIKE BUSH POLICIES. It is just that simple.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just have trouble when someone accuses a whole group of people for an action that could not possible be supported by all such people.bigotry is bigotry.

You should reread his post. He didn't blame Jews, he blamed neocons which he described as consisting of a large number of Jews who switched party affiliation to promote the interests of Israel.He was actually being kind of accurate with that description.I think his overthetop conspiracy theorist style made him sound more group labelling than he actually was.He looked like a duck and sounded like a duck, but turned out to be a nut.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I expect that the answer to these questions may be related to the intense hatred that many people have for the US. We have much rhetoric about how we want to promote democracy around the world but it is clear from our actions that we do not. The end of the first gulf war is a perfect example of this. If we as a country truly wanted democracy and freedom we would have given Kuwait a democracy. The problem is that we only want democracies that support our policies. As such we support oppressive regimes and get involved in situations that don't concern us because we want stable governments in strategic locations. In the Middle East we wanted the oil, which was why we liked Saddam for so many years. He was stable and kept the oil flowing. The fact that he was a deranged killer was really not important to us.I still can't figure out why we needed to go into Iraq this time anyway. It isn't as if Saddam was cutting off oil supplies. All we have done is _guarantee_ that we will be the targets of terrorism for the foreseeable future.Also, I think that the one thing that could have prevented the first 9/11 attack was not more security or changes in US policy but rather a lock on the cockpit doors. If the terrorists couldn’t get into the cockpit quickly the pilots would have had time to dump the fuel and/or get the planes down.As a side not I noticed that someone called you a Liberal. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you are a Libertarian.

These neocon's attachment to Israel is not bizarre. They are Jews and thier identity/loyalty is to thier own people. Also Jews who support the Democratic party depending on the motives of each individual. They are being consistent. The point being a person whos loyalty is not to thier own country/people (and here it should be the americans) is evidence of having rejected the agreement for being allowed into anothers man's country in the first place.
In short they are being traitorous and not just in this issue.
In all ways at all times do Jews in America who hold out of all prorportion influence and power push America for the gain of Israel.
100 billion dollars over the last two decades and all policies in the middle east are all with Israel in mind. Not America and mankind.I suggest a counting of heads at the top of the Bush administration will reveal a Jewish presence greater then even in Democratic circles.The war against Iraq as you have said or hinted at was only to remove a opponent of Israel as the attention on Iran and Syria likewise.
Not a threat to America or WMD but a threat (andit wasn't) to Israel.
The American people are the blood and money to keep Israeli soldiers fine. President Bush and company actually did deceive the American people about motives for war in Iraq (Afghanistan is fine) because they don't trust the American people to hold such affection for Israel as they do to such loss of life and limb.
So they pretented it was about fighting terrorists of America.
I notice Bush and company are now saying it is a war against terrorism (read all terrorists even unrelated to hostility to America). They only mean Israel problems not the world and not originaly to protect America. They wickedly lied about a serious matter and historical inquirery is needed they are being outed by many even right now. like you and me.
And I am a right wing conservative Reagan lover evangelical Christian type who found out this without promting.
All the best
Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario

Agreed with you assessment.As far as cockpit doors, there were other measures as well regarding the whole cockpit area that falls far short of having to revamp the intelligence system (though that needed to be done for other reasons) or things like the Patriot Act.The interesting thing is that such changes to direct physical airplane security were recommended by professional organizations to the Clinton administration. Al Gore specifically wrote the airline lobby telling them not to worry, because they would not be expected to introduce the changes.Yeah, under Al Gore the same thing probably would have happened. I'm sort of a libertarian. I started that way, but have some disagreements with the party, and many of the hardcore ones (living in a Utopia).The latest test polls posted at EvC score me as a left liberal right on the border of libertarian.In the end I am too independent when it comes to any specific issue. But yeah, libertarian is better than straight out liberal.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

canard derange? okay.