Will there be another "9/11" ?

as long as people are disenfranchised from the world there will be acts of violence, some legitimate and some not. in one sense the original acts of the freedom fighters in the uS were terrorist.and our ability to cause great harm from little effort is also increasing.but it is not something that you can declare "war" on.and remember -- 9/11 was NOT the first attack. there has already been another.enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-15-2004 10:41 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's assume for one terrible moment that there is another successful terrorist attack in the US using Arab nationalists.And let's assume that Al Quaida was very smart (they are) and recruited Saudi nationals or Iraqi nationals and / or Afghan nationals.SO WHO THE H*LL ARE YOU GOING TO INVADE NEXT?Saudi Arabia? What, seize their oil fields and say "naughty, naughty"Iraq - Oh wait, we're already there and we're getting fired on 50 times a day.Afghanistan - We're already there and can't find THE ONE MAN who started all this shit on 9/11.*******************************
Screw high tech. If you want to attack soon and effectively, you use materials at hand. Ammonium nitrate and deisel fuel in a rental truck in Times Square (not the financial district) or a stolen yacht in the Port of Miami or Port of New York against the hull of a cruise ship. Or if funds are available from the sale of heroin from the poppy fields of Afghanistan, buy some C4 plastic explosive on the black market.Terrorists didn't wait for the development of nuclear or biological weapons in Madrid, now, did they?(:raig

quote:

---

The use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons

---

Chemical and Biological weapons are rightfully termed "WMD"s, but the acronym should be different: "Weapons of Minimal Destruction". The reason they are feared is not that they are particularly destructive. In fact, when they were initially created, they were presented as a way to reduce the amount of people killed in warfare, because even the most deadly are far more likely to incapacitate people or to break up skirmishes than to take lives, in comparison to conventional weapons. In the Iran-Iraq war, poison gas killed about 5,000 people, compared to 600,000 Iranian dead (not including Kurdish combattants) - less than one percent. Even in WWI, poison gas caused less than 5% of the casualties, and it took about one *ton* of gas per enemy fatality.Page not found - spikedThe most common biological agent - anthrax - behaves far more like a chemical weapon. Even contageous biological agents, which are almost never used, are hard to get to spread properly, due to modern quarantine measures. Look at SARS, for example - even though China pretended that it didn't really exist while it was first spreading around the globe, it was still contained without some huge fiasco.Nuclear weapons are true WMDs. However, the process to produce nuclear weapons from scratch is really staggering, and the concept that a terrorist could produce one is simply insane. A terrorist could only feasably *acquire* one, and even in the former Soviet Union, that's no simple feat.

quote:

---

Your opinion, not mine. Neither of us has enough facts to make such a claim

---

Um, yes we do. We know how many people get killed by terrorism per year. If we were being proportionate, we'd be declaring a War on Cancer, a War on AIDS, a War on Heart Disease, a War on Car Accidents, and a War on Suicide.

quote:

---

(a) The growing radical muslim movement worldwide

---

No. The problem is asymmetrical warfare. If a people is incredibly technologically outgunned, the concept of hitting hard targets becomes suicide and completely unproductive. So, such a people has two options: Hit soft targets, or doing nothing. If such a society truly feels itself wronged, it is crazy to think that there won't be a small percentage of the population that will strike out in the only way that it can: hitting soft targets. This is called terrorism. It is brutal, and immoral, but if you expect people who feel themselves deeply, severely wronged (and in some cases, with good reason; in others, not so much) to sit around and do nothing, or to commit suicide by the thousands by attacks on hardened targets that they have no chance of taking - you are sorely mistaken.Why do you think it is that it's always groups that are completely outgunned that turn to terrorism? Why don't, when armies face off, they don't tend to focus on razing the enemy's territory to terrify them into quitting? Even Hitler and Stalin (in the majority of cases; there were some exceptions) didn't do that. It is because, to achieve an objective, standard military means are far easier. Only in the case where standard military means are unavailable, do parties who feel wronged enough to take up arms focus on terrorist acts instead of conventional military ones.I always feel something between dismay and humor whenever I hear US soldiers and commanders talking about how cowardly their enemy is, because they spend all their time hiding and never come out and face them. *Of Course* they don't come out and face you, because then you would slaughter them like dogs. They're goal isn't to die; it is to achieve a definable military objective. Why on earth would they fight the way *we* want them to fight, and get mowed down in the process? Until Americans address this most basic fact, we're going to keep getting dragged into warfare and not understanding why our enemy is behaving the way that they are.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-15-2004 12:46 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I am not saying that I agree with U.S. foreign policy! I think that by attacking entire cultures because they refuse to trade with us and want to run themselves their own way, we are digging our own grave! How long do you think that U.S. soldiers will continue playing global cop? How long before they wake up and realize that they are a mere mercenary Army to protect the interests of the rich? What if it was discovered that a few dozen terrorist cells in the U.S. were active and were Mexican nationals???
Our problems have only just begun.
I will qualify, however....who are we? Who are they?

I understood that from your rich people angle. But you still seemed to have a reason why Iraq COULD be considered a valid target in a fight against terrorism. I was criticizing that.

---

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

Great post, Rei! Why am I so strongly reminded of Bill Cosby's old routine about the Revolutionary War? "Colonists, you win the toss! You wear what you want and hide behind trees and rocks. General Cornwallis, your guys wear red coats and march down the middle of the road."

You missed my point, and therefore made my point.
My statement was not about recognizing the issue of terrorism, but rather about a fundamental evolution in tactics and weaponry that changes the way it can be effectively countered. Sabatoge has always been around, but the weaponry was never a true major threat to a country as it is with WMD. Wrong. The rebel forces already existed prior to Reagan. US helped them win the war in Afghanistan against the Russians, yes. But "create"?, no. Funding from oil-rich Arabs and protectionist Muslim states built the terrorist threat since that time. I will pass on your slander of former presidents. Wrong again. The administration does "get it". Bush said it rather succinctly:
- Find the criminals and eliminate them as a threat
- Cut off the funding
- Eliminate their hiding places. Make it clear to harboring countries that we will not let the terrorists hide (i.e. or else risk invasion to go get the terrorists). Disagree that it is a police matter. The fact that folks are trying classify this as police or military shows that they miss the point of how tactics of warfare have changed. The purpose of terrorist actions is for political power.You are looking to control terrorism to "managable levels". This is saying you cannot win the war. As long as terrorism works (as it did in Spain), you will encourage the tactics, and lengthen the war.The war will not end until Muslims make it end. They have to take care of their misfits. They are the ones who must find out among the civilians who is a terrorist and who is an innocent.

quote:

---

It going to very hard to duplicate 9/11. Besides, the sequel is seldom as good as the original. So terrorists are left with...

---

9/11 was the third in a trilogy for bin Laden. Don't forget the bombing of two US embassies in Africa (episode 1), and the bombing of the USS Coles (episode 2). With a death toll of about 3,500 a sequel is quite possible.Just to add to your list, anthrax is still a real threat. You can find a source of anthrax just by searching cow shit in a pasture, preferrably in a third world nation where antibiotics in cattle feed isn't as prevalent. From that point all you need is about 25,000 dollars in equipment and somebody with the know how.I think Bush was right (god I hate saying that) when he said that the war on terror will never be won. In the same way, no society is safe from attacks that could kill thousands. Without Orwellian measures being foisted on a society the possibility of a major attack is quite high. The question is not CAN the terrorists kill thousands of people but WILL they.

quote:

---

- Eliminate their hiding places. Make it clear to harboring countries that we will not let the terrorists hide (i.e. or else risk invasion to go get the terrorists).

---

So do we invade Florida because the hijackers were trained to fly in that state? Of course this question is over the top, but so is Bush's rhetoric at times. There is a fine line between state sponsored terrorism and unknowingly harboring terrorists. In the case of Iraq, the best the Bush administration can do is claim that Iraq posed a threat to Israel. Saddam was openly supporting terrorism in the struggle between Israel and Palenstine. Of course, Israel is also a threat to Iraq as per the example of Israeli jet fighters bombing a nuclear factory being constructed in Iraq. At best, Bush could claim that people in the Iraqi government supported terrorism against the US but that is a far cry from state sponsored terrorism. I don't know if you agree or disagree with the War in Iraq, just felt like including it.

I did not miss your point, I simply believe you are completely wrong. WMD change nothing. Do you have any idea what can be done on a budget of under $10,000 with common, ordinary, easily available items? Do you know what keeps the Mississippi River flowing to New Orleans? WMDs are not a threat to a Nation. They are a risk, but no nation has ever been destroyed by WMDs. Actually, if you will study history, there was no slander, simply fact. Dear old Ollie North was directly involved in creating and supplying terrorists (non-Islamic by the way) and bring in drugs to be distributed in the US. It was interesting that one of Reagan's last acts was to seal away or destroy all of the evidence to protect Bush Senior.By the way, I am not a liberal but rather a Republican who has worked campaigns since Eisenhower's second run, so don't try running label games on me. Instead, check the history of the Iran/Contra investigation. Sorry, but that is simply rhetroric and not supported by the facts. The single biggest commodity in Afghanistan is Opium Poppies. Check and see what we did relating to the opium fields after invading and occupying the country.Eliminating their hiding places is also nonsense. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were significant hiding places for terrorists. What terrorists need to succeed is access to infrastructure, industry, telephones, internet, easy movement. If you want to find terrorist hiding places look at London, Toronto, Miami, Detroit, Baltimore, Dallas, Rome, Belin, Madrid, Rio, Mexico City, Venice, Lisbon...You want to cut off funding, make drugs free and stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and place an embargo on those nations as we did with Lybia. Of course it's about political power. But terrorist organizations are not nation states. You cannot treat them as nation states. I agree that the tactics of warfare have changed. It's just too bad GWB doesn't know that. Of course you cannot win the war. To even imagine that is the case is simply silly. Even GWB knows that and has even said that it cannot be won. Well, to say muslims is to ignore most of the terrorism over the last hundred years or so. The muslim issue is only the latest, and maybe a minor, example of terrorism. Ask the Irish. Ask throughout South America.Terrorism will be brought within manageable levels when we help change the economic and social conditions on the ground. That means aid, massive aid, and health care and education. Instead, the adminsitration just asked to transfer $35,000,000,000.00 from infrastructure support in Iraq into military funds. Smart move?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I think Bush was right (god I hate saying that) when he said that the war on terror will never be won.

---

Don't worry, he "corrected" himself to be wrong again right after saying that by claiming that it CAN be won after all.

I assume you are talking about Waco. You are using creationist logic to pick out something out of who-knows-where to make a claim that distorts the real facts:
- Saddam had WMD that no one (Allies) knows what happened to them
- Saddam had been given many UN resolutions (ultimatims) to cooperate with inspections and no-fly zones (where he frequently made attacks on our planes); he represented an example to all nations that they could thumb their noses at the UN and USA and get away with it (including supporting terrorists, not hunting them down)
- UN didn't have the gonads to enforce the resolutions (we find out later the French, Russians, Germans, and Kofi enjoyed the riches of unethical Iraqi oil deals... yep, it's all about oil... to those guys)
- Bush, Kerry, Congress, etc. was ill-informed of WMD in Iraq
- Saddam paid families of terrorists for their heroism (thereby encouraging it)
- Bush did not want to take a chance on terrorists getting ahold of those missing WMD to use on US soil
- A free Iraq has the potential of creating similar demands in other Arab countries that have subversive dictatorships... this is a better option than invading all of them
- Diverts energy, resources and funds of Al Qaida to Arab battleground

quote:

---

- Saddam had WMD that no one (Allies) knows what happened to them

---

Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - "They over-interpreted," Blix said. "They were convinced that Saddam was going in this direction, and I think it's understandable against the background of the man that they did so, but you know, in the Middle Ages, when people were convinced there were witches, they certainly found them."Blix criticized coalition calls for the Survey Group to be given more time to assess whether Saddam was developing illegal arms. "Now even in the past summer they said we must have some patience for the U.S. and U.K. investigations," he told the BBC. "So the patience they are requiring for themselves now was not anything that they wanted to give to us."He accused the British government of falling prey to a "culture of spin, the culture of hyping . Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don't quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility."In an interview with Australian radio broadcast Wednesday, Blix said he believed that Iraq had destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a military attack. "http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-blixbaradei-121902.htm(doesn't quote well, but it's not too long - read all of it).'Even if Iraq managed to hide these weapons, what they are now hiding is harmless goo' | Iraq | The GuardianI believe the primary problem at this point is one of accounting. Iraq has destroyed 90 to 95% of its weapons of mass destruction. Okay. We have to remember that this missing 5 to 10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn't even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which, in its totality, doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited. Likewise, just because we can't account for it, doesn't mean Iraq retains it. There is no evidence that Iraq retains this material. That is the quandary we are in. We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on its weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de facto retention of a prohibited capability worthy of war.http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdfAn interview with Rolf Ekeus and Hussein Kamel. If you're not familiar with Kamel, you better read upHmm, are there any more people who are experts on the subject that I could go into? I mean, I've covered Blix, El Baradei, Ritter, Ekeus... who still needs to be covered? All of this information was out there before the war.

quote:

---

- Saddam had been given many UN resolutions (ultimatims) to cooperate with inspections and no-fly zones (where he frequently made attacks on our planes); he represented an example to all nations that they could thumb their noses at the UN and USA and get away with it (including supporting terrorists, not hunting them down)

---

Heh, where to start. First off, there are, and never were, any "no fly zone" resolutions. They're a US and British construct with no international backing (and regular opposition from the other security council members). Consequently, Iraq had every right to shoot at planes in the no-fly zones.Iraq *did* cooperate with inspections, and was vindicated when we invaded and found out that they weren't lying.As for "UN Resolutions", how does the handful of resolutions against Iraq - which it *cooperated with* - compare to this (plus this?

quote:

---

- UN didn't have the gonads to enforce the resolutions (we find out later the French, Russians, Germans, and Kofi enjoyed the riches of unethical Iraqi oil deals... yep, it's all about oil... to those guys)

---

First off, what resolutions are you claiming that the UN didn't attempt to enforce? Secondly, the line about "enjoying the riches" is utter nonsense. From a most basic level, the UN agency in charge of approving contracts (the 661 committee) didn't have the authority to select who Iraq granted contracts to. Who had that authority? The UN Security Council. The council, however, rarely ever enforced it; the US and Britain blocked a small number of contracts, almost exclusively to Chinese companies.The "Kofi Tie" is laughable. The supposed tie is that his son Kojo works for Cotecna in Ghana. However, Kojo's work there was completely regional, and had nothing to do with Iraq inspections; furthermore, Cotecna was approved in an open bidding process (in fact, it was the only company that bid for the inspection contract, due to how short notice it was; Lloyd's Register, the previous inspection company, dropped their contract without advanced notice).The most laughable claims - that various individuals were given oil contracts - is just silly. First off, it was released by a newspaper headed run by INC members (al-Mada). The INC, headed by Chalabi, was busted for feeding false information into the OFF investigation (among other things). Secondly, if you read who it claims was dealing in oil contracts, it almost comes across as a joke. Supposedly the Russian Orthodox Church was involved in oil trading. So were friends of the pope.Another silly, but frequent allegation, is that France, Germany, Russia, and China were just protecting their own financial interests by opposing the war. Ignoring the fact that opposition to the war ranged from the upper sixies to the mid 80s-percent among their people (how *dare* they support what their people want!), Iraq trade with these countries was relatively trivial. The largest trading partner of these countries, by far, is the USA; risking a trade rift with the USA to back their comparatively tiny trade interests with Iraq would be more than counterproductive.

quote:

---

- Bush, Kerry, Congress, etc. was ill-informed of WMD in Iraq

---

Well, seing as Kerry and the rest of Congress were given their intelligence assessments from the Bush administration, that's no real shock there.

quote:

---

- Saddam paid families of terrorists for their heroism (thereby encouraging it)

---

Wow, one thing that's true! Congrats, that's the first one so far. Of course, so did Saudi Arabia. They later changed their policy when the US put pressure on them Furthermore, Saddam tried several times to stop the war, and his offers included doing what the US wanted concerning Israel and Palestine (see the references at the bottom for more details; the article is just a summary).

quote:

---

- Bush did not want to take a chance on terrorists getting ahold of those missing WMD to use on US soil

---

Ostensibly.

quote:

---

- A free Iraq has the potential of creating similar demands in other Arab countries that have subversive dictatorships... this is a better option than invading all of them

---

Yeah, the "Domino Theory" worked REALLY well, didn't it? Now the opinion of America is even lower in the single digits in the middle east. Congrats, way to go! Who would have guessed that getting to see new mangled bodies of innocent people every day might make them a touch angry?Now that the insurgency is getting larger and more violent, it's worse than you think, it makes you wonder: What if we had not gone into Iraq?Perhaps if you want to keep updated, you'll read some Iraqi Blogs

quote:

---

- Diverts energy, resources and funds of Al Qaida to Arab battleground

---

That's why the US report - which even when revised, still didn't include any attacks in Iraq as terrorism - showed a sharp rise in international terrorism? If you include the attacks in Iraq, the number is staggering. The flypaper theory is completely incorrect. It's also incredibly callous to our draftees serving over there, many of which, including a friend of mine, didn't even sign up for MOSes that would put them in such a situation to begin with.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-15-2004 07:56 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Actually, we have had a very good idea of what happened to them all along. Most were logged and listed, inspected and deactivated. And he was complying. In fact, the UN had to remove the WMD inspectors that were working in Iraq when the US said they would invade anyway. They were certainly informed. They just didn't like the answers they were getting so they made stuff up. Like for Powell's UN speech. So did Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the PLA and many other nations. Did we invade them?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So do we. Does that mean Canada should invade us? Based on what? When has this ever happened in the Middle East? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Why would Al Qaida redirect resources to our highest concentration of troops? Do you really think that they're idiots, or something?