Can terrorism be fought?
DiscoZombie
Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
in Discussions
On the day of 9/11, as I was watching the news feeds, I knew immediately that war was coming, that it was inevitable, and that it was going to be a bad idea. I knew we'd attack Afghanistan first, and I didn't think there would be a point. The nation of Afghanistan didn't destroy the twin towers - a group of civilian terrorists mixed in with the general population did. Was there a point to invading and killing innocent civilians and leaving land mines that killed children? did it bring us closer to eliminating terrorism? Let's say we killed a ton of people and even managed to find Bin Laden. If we executed him, then would we have eliminated terrorism? does killing tens of thousands of innocent Afghanistan civilians or Iraqi civilians somehow make up for the couple thousand people that died to a few scattered terrorists in the US?
Military occupation cannot change the culture of the middle east - not for the better, anyway. It's part of the Muslim religion that if you think you're fighting for God, you go to heaven. I'm not saying all Muslims are violent or something - I'm saying that violence is sometimes a part of middle east culture, and invading countries isn't going to make the select few people who violently hate the west any less violent.
Violence in the name of religion sure isn't unique to Islam. Christianity has been violent in the name of religion for centuries. If anything, the Christian nation that is the USA invading the Middle East only proves that Christianity does the violence thing better than they do <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Anyway, to get back to the thread title, do you think terrorism can be fought by conventional means? What do you think the US should have done differently, if anything, in the years following 9/11? Discuss (and probably flame). <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Military occupation cannot change the culture of the middle east - not for the better, anyway. It's part of the Muslim religion that if you think you're fighting for God, you go to heaven. I'm not saying all Muslims are violent or something - I'm saying that violence is sometimes a part of middle east culture, and invading countries isn't going to make the select few people who violently hate the west any less violent.
Violence in the name of religion sure isn't unique to Islam. Christianity has been violent in the name of religion for centuries. If anything, the Christian nation that is the USA invading the Middle East only proves that Christianity does the violence thing better than they do <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Anyway, to get back to the thread title, do you think terrorism can be fought by conventional means? What do you think the US should have done differently, if anything, in the years following 9/11? Discuss (and probably flame). <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Comments
The part everyone seems to forget is that right below "kill all enemies of the faith" is "and you will not so much as sleep in a man's house without permission, for those who wish you no harm shall not be harmed in the name of god" and about two pages later we have "and he who kills another man, it is as if he has killed all of mankind"
Though that all sounds so cynical, I'll make an about-face and defend the war itself. Afghanistan was Al-Qaeda's base of operations, and the Taliban was what they thought was a <i>real</i> Islamic government--oppressive, extremist, and basing their entire system and body of policy off of Islam. Though other governments in the area might be Islamic and oppressive, their politics are too practical for Al Qaeda: Saudi Arabia befriended the U.S. for economic and political reasons, Saddam Hussein cared little about religion, and even movements like the PLO focused too much on ethnicity and not enough on religion. Naturally, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were connected by money, marriage, and blood, so taking on both was the logical choice for the U.S.
The only thing the U.S. should have done differently was Tora Bora. Since the details are very hazy (and the terrain incredibly forbidding), it might not have been possible to do better, but it sure would have been nice to have cornered and annihilated Al-Qaeda's core during that battle.
With weapons? No.
You can't fight the darkness by casting magic missile at it, and that's what the war on terror amounts to. You can't capture terrorism, can't put it on trial, can't put it up against the wall and shoot it. You can't kill terrorism. You can only kill terrorists. And because of the way terrorists operate, because of the way they hide among the population and are even supported by the population, for every (alleged) terrorist you capture or kill you will kill, injure, displace or otherwise alienate twenty other people. Out of those twenty, two will become terrorists.
A "war on terror" can't be a military conflict, and anyone who would claim so is giving you the run-around.
Terror can only be "fought" through reconciliation. That's a long and difficult process, and a painful one to boot. It involves extending a hand and having it slapped away again and again. When someone hates you so much that they will resort to terrorism, restoring trust and friendship is not easy.
But terrorism originates from the people. A terrorist is an ordinary person, but so full of hatred that they take extreme measures. Hatred is the cause, terrorism is the symptom. Remove the cause, and the symptom disappears on its own. Leave the cause, and the symptom can never be removed permanently.
The only way to remove the hatred by military might is by removing the people. I'm talking full scale genocide here. But of course, that will not really remove the hatred, only incite it anew, among others. The only peace that weapons can create is the peace of annihilation.
Terrorism can be fought, but only with friendship, with understanding, with sacrifice, and with infinite patience.
No, terrorism can't be waged war on.
Yes, terrorism can be <i>policed</i>.
Local drug crime in a city can't be something you wage a war on. It's something you have a police force combat and control. But that's local, terrorism is an international crime and that's where things get tricky. Who has the policing authority then?
I wish it was just a matter of being tolerant, but what can you do, look at the Muhammed cartoon controversy in Denmark. Islamic clerics actively traveled around even showing pictures that had nothing to do with Jyllandsposten (the man wearing a pig mask, having nothing to do with Islam or Muhammed) just to provoke fellow Muslims.
We will most likely have to live with terrorism a generation or too, and minimize damage and actions that will just recruit more terrorists. I don't mean to be cynical and I'm certain you'll disagree with me, but terrorism isn't a great threat neither materially or in numbers of lives. You would of course be right to bring up the amount of emotional pain and fear of knowing a significant proportion of an alien culture hates the western world.
This is without a doubt a very provocative statement, but still it's in the minds of those behind terrorism. The greatest threat of terrorism isn't the acts themselves, but what it makes us fear, think and do. I could elaborate, but I don't think I have to.
The brits killed 26 catholic civil rights marchers in '72. This one event was probably the most effective recruiting tool for the IRA for the next 20 years.
Theres so much propaganda right now its hard to separate the real facts, but I would say that support for Al Qaeda just after 911 was at its most fragile point, whereas now, its pretty much unlimited, i.e. their support bases in Pakistan, Saudi, etc have grown exponentially and the current wave of anti-west feeling is at an all time high. Perfect conditions for the growth of extremism.
Before 911 you had a few men operating subversively in a region. Whereas now, that whole region will actually support these men, making funds, arms, recruitment alot easier.
Disco, that is the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever, ever ever, seen written on this forum. That's a troll, deliberate & intended. It holds as much truth as the KKK claiming that lynching black people is what the bible told them to do. There are fundamentalists who have intentionally twisted portions Islam to achieve these goals, if anything Islam is far more peaceful as a religion than Christianity is.
Don't get me wrong, the Middle East is one of the more war torn geographical locations in the world, but that's because so many cultures collide there. Europe is no different, we just got it over & done with hundreds of years before instant communication, ballistic weaponry etc, so we were limited in our scale.
On topic: I don't believe in any way the application of force, unless exceedingly carefully done, will ever help fight terrorism. There's a whole generation of kids growing up in Iraq, right now, whose only memories of the US & UK are 'They invaded my country & blew it to bits' who may well grow up hating us for it. Way to ensure the next generation has the same problem that we do.
The only way to succeed is to change opinions through support & defence only, then your fundamentalists will simply find themselves ranting on soapboxes like crazy people, whilst the majority who have come to the conclusion that the West isn't all that bad carry on with their lives.
- Shockwave
Disco, that is the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever, ever ever, seen written on this forum. That's a troll, deliberate & intended. It holds as much truth as the KKK claiming that lynching black people is what the bible told them to do. There are fundamentalists who have intentionally twisted portions Islam to achieve these goals, if anything Islam is far more peaceful as a religion than Christianity is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's harsh =p if you go on to read the rest of my post, I acknowledge that Christianity has historically been more violent, if anything. no trolling at all. I didn't say all Muslims are dirty, bloodthirsty people. that would be a troll and a bigoted thing to say. I basically said that something about the region's culture + the religion enables a significant percentage of people to take up arms in the name of their religion. something about American culture makes us pretty warlike, too, one may notice.
anyway, back on topic - semipsychotic, I think you made a lot of good points on why attacking Afghanistan's Taliban government was probably a good idea.
But the resultant police state that is built in the aftermath of occupation which processes every rank-and-file citizen with subcutaneous implanted GPS-capable RFID tags.. Don't forget about that, man.
But the resultant police state that is built in the aftermath of occupation which processes every rank-and-file citizen with subcutaneous implanted GPS-capable RFID tags.. Don't forget about that, man.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's all marvel at the substance of this post for a second.
Okay, let's continue. Terrorism itself is a worthless word. Terrorism is a subset of unconventional warfare. The subtle difference that terrorists attack civilians while Guerrilla warfighters attack armies keeps terrorism on the black list.
You still have a <i>political</i> statement or a <i>material</i> goal. Terrorism isn't some fancy-pants idea that's resorted to by people with ideals, it's a tool to be used to get what you want. In that sense, you can fight terrorism by either killing those who commit it, or alleviating them from their desires which made them use terrorism to begin with.
When you're talking about this kind of thing, it's helpful to remember that while our enemies may be quite devout in their beliefs, they are locked with us in a political struggle. This isn't about religion so much as ideology. Let's not forget the history of blood between all three of what we call the major monotheistic religions. My point is that this really is a war, be it possibly the most unconventional we've seen. So yes, you can make war on terror.
If you believe lolfighter, and that we can win by somehow charming the terrorists, that too is unconventional warfare. I can say this because apparently, the definition of war is changing, or at least more flexible these days.
I personally don't think we can befriend them, as desirable as it is. I think that if we offer a hand, it'll be used to draw us into striking distance and we'll end up with teeth in our throat. However, we have seen in the past that militarily conquering an enemy and using force to keep them in check does work. It doesn't work forever, but then, what ever does last forever?
Surely not war. Surely not hate, not love, and not peace. Sooner or later, it changes into something else.
You still have a <i>political</i> statement or a <i>material</i> goal. Terrorism isn't some fancy-pants idea that's resorted to by people with ideals, it's a tool to be used to get what you want. In that sense, you can fight terrorism by either killing those who commit it, or alleviating them from their desires which made them use terrorism to begin with.
When you're talking about this kind of thing, it's helpful to remember that while our enemies may be quite devout in their beliefs, they are locked with us in a political struggle. This isn't about religion so much as ideology. Let's not forget the history of blood between all three of what we call the major monotheistic religions. My point is that this really is a war, be it possibly the most unconventional we've seen. So yes, you can make war on terror.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can go after extremists, hunt them down, but you cannot, ever, invade countries or start wars to get at them. This just creates a much bigger problem as we've already seen.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I personally don't think we can befriend them, as desirable as it is. I think that if we offer a hand, it'll be used to draw us into striking distance and we'll end up with teeth in our throat. However, we have seen in the past that militarily conquering an enemy and using force to keep them in check does work. It doesn't work forever, but then, what ever does last forever?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at Russia and Chechnya, The British and the IRA, it can be done. It takes time and reconciliation. The current administration is strangely meek and timid when it comes to the North Koreans, yet oddly enough very arrogant and harsh when it comes to the Middle East. In our lifetime we may see peace between Israel and the Palestinians but it won't involve war, invasion and bombs.
<strike>J3WS</strike> NWO BANKERS DID WTC. <a href="http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/" target="_blank">PROOF</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you were probably being sarcastic but yeh, its pretty obvious the u.s. government did it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
this is how you combat terrorism:
5 man seal teams show up in the middle of the night silently, owns objective, and vanishes just as silently
Stop funding the marines, and start utilizing specwar
the specwar community has been honing anti terror skills since the early 80's late 70's
Stop funding the marines, and start utilizing specwar
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how about stop funding the terrorists
how about stop funding the terrorists
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Dilbert puts it:
<img src="http://www.greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
The only way to devalue oil, is to make oil worth less.
And the only way to do that is to start getting off liquid fuels.
____________________________________
However I can say one thing which hurts our actions on terror.
Jacking up the price of food and water via biofuels.
<img src="http://www.greyfalcon.net/grocerybill.png" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<a href="http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?id=78029-fao-biofuels-food-prices" target="_blank">http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?i...els-food-prices</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->at a global average, 1,000-4,000 gallons of water is consumed by the biomass needed to produce one gallon of biofuel. Some Parts of India and China have already reached critical water levels, the authors say, without any attempt to produce more quantities of biofuel.
<a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1311" target="_blank">http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1311</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
__________________________
<!--quoteo(post=1640086:date=Jul 21 2007, 10:38 PM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Jul 21 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]1640086[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
you were probably being sarcastic but yeh, its pretty obvious the u.s. government did it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US Gov didn't do it. They merely profiteered off it.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/iraqforsale" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/iraqforsale</a>
The US Gov didn't do it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
give me a break
give me a break
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyways, watch the movie I linked to.
Now that is real.
And just about as disgusting.
give me a break
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would be unfair to call the 9/11 truth movement conspiracy theorists, they don't even have a theory. I regard it more as a religion; you certainly need the same kind of faith and confirmation bias to not see through the sillyness.
This is a war on Al Qaeda, <i>which is a single well-organized terrorist group.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a loose association of sunni jihadist organizations and it's structured as semi-autonomous cells. It is as much ideology(strongly inspired by Sayyid Qutb) as it's a terrorist organization.
I regard it more as a religion; you certainly need the same kind of faith and confirmation bias to not see through the sillyness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hardly. the "9/11 truth" movies are so depressing i wouldnt want to believe them. but its hard to believe the official reports as well. i mean come <i>on</i>, theres been hundreds if not thousands of plane accidents and crash landings, in how many has the entire airplane completely vaporized on impact? or how the official report on wtc said that there were no "core columns", yet theres actual footage from the seventies that shows huge pillars sticking 300 feet in the air when they were bulding the towers
i guess it doesnt even matter now what really happened, the war is on and halliburton is making ######loads of money. and fox news keeps the general public passive and acceptive
The reason for that is that the building was originally intended to be a library, full with books.
So the building was reinforced way beyond code for a general office building.
Never did end up being used as a library, but it does do a good job at vaporizing airplanes.
Let's all marvel at the substance of this post for a second.
Okay, let's continue. Terrorism itself is a worthless word. Terrorism is a subset of unconventional warfare. The subtle difference that terrorists attack civilians while Guerrilla warfighters attack armies keeps terrorism on the black list.
You still have a <i>political</i> statement or a <i>material</i> goal. Terrorism isn't some fancy-pants idea that's resorted to by people with ideals, it's a tool to be used to get what you want. In that sense, you can fight terrorism by either killing those who commit it, or alleviating them from their desires which made them use terrorism to begin with.
When you're talking about this kind of thing, it's helpful to remember that while our enemies may be quite devout in their beliefs, they are locked with us in a political struggle. This isn't about religion so much as ideology. Let's not forget the history of blood between all three of what we call the major monotheistic religions. My point is that this really is a war, be it possibly the most unconventional we've seen. So yes, you can make war on terror.
If you believe lolfighter, and that we can win by somehow charming the terrorists, that too is unconventional warfare. I can say this because apparently, the definition of war is changing, or at least more flexible these days.
I personally don't think we can befriend them, as desirable as it is. I think that if we offer a hand, it'll be used to draw us into striking distance and we'll end up with teeth in our throat. However, we have seen in the past that militarily conquering an enemy and using force to keep them in check does work. It doesn't work forever, but then, what ever does last forever?
Surely not war. Surely not hate, not love, and not peace. Sooner or later, it changes into something else.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you mean that we can't befriend them? Do you mean the Arab-Islamic world as a whole? Of course you don't mean that, but you need to be more specific. Who are we going to let become sworn enemies. A very large proportion of the Arab-Islamic world are potential terrorists if they happen to take to some radical teachings. And they are spread around and hidden. Nobody expected the Physicans in the car bombings in Britain to be Islamic radicals. You are forced to alienate a very large group if you are to cover all potential terrorists. You would just escalate it into a several generational long world-wide all encompassing war.
I imagine you want a war that can give a finite solution on terrorism, which is understandable. It's just that how big and what proportion of the Muslim world is willing to do these kinds of acts are unknown to us. And you have to fight of several countries and go after certain 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants in every western country to get rid of every person who sympathizes with acts of terror against the western world.
The reason to find a less confrontational path towards the Arab-Islamic world isn't to be morally superior, it is because it's more practical than fighting off the whole world. And any war, as the Iraq war is a strong example of, will cause us more trouble than the lone acts of terrorism in themselves. How many thousands of fellow Americans have we lost in Iraq? How many times more of Iraqi lives have been lost? How many lives have been lost to terrorism against western countries since 9/11? Certainly to many, but how do we best help the situation.
And That_Annoying_Kid, you are right we could use can use Special Ops against known targets. But what about the millions of unknown targets? What about that Physician in Britain?
You can invade Iraq and even Iran. But what about Saudi Arabia? Have you forgotten that several of the 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? What about every other country that harbours potential terrorists?
The solution is covert intelligence to stop individuals in our own countries, and maybe some small operations to stop delivery of weapons etc. But the greatest source of terrorists around the world, radical clerics and Muslims recruiting each other can't be stopped with a dozen invasions.
Our best hope is to not feed the fire, and keeping it from spreading, and eventually the fire of radical Islam <b>might</b> die out. If we start killing several more thousand Muslim Arabs around the world, most likely it will infuriate so many people that our grandchildren will also experience a Muslim world that hates them.
The way you "defeat terrorism" is by removing its support in the populations it emanates from. Terrorism is not a tangible enemy, it's a school of thought. Conquering a people instills desire for revenge in them. And unable to defeat you militarily, they will instead fly planes into your buildings. The way to "defeat terrorism" is to remove the desire for it, and that is not done through invasions.
The real question is, can fanatics be appeased? I'd say the answer is no, they cannot be appeased, they can only be destroyed, either by shifting their beliefs to something less fanatic, or by killing the individual itself. The appropriate course of action I generally tend to lean towards recommending the shifting of ideals, but sometimes this is unfeasible for whatever reason. In the case of Islamic terrorism I think the need to shift ideals is unavoidable however. It's not possible to murder large segments of a population without making them appear as martyrs, nor is it ethical.
However, that being said, in terms of fighting terror, there are some strategies that can be applied that are a little more suave than just letting yourself get blown up with a grin on your face. One thing to consider is to create a large base central to regions of terror, stock this base with the amenities needed to survive bombardment, and then let the fanatic attackers waste resources targeting this hard target rather than one of your more damaging and integral soft targets. In large part I think this is what is basically happening in Iraq for better or for worse. The real risk is that this entity that has been created could basically form as an idealistic lighting rod causing a long term anti-civilization trend in the middle east that might have been easier to counteract otherwise...
The guys who blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings are fanatics, yes. For all intents and purposes, let's step on some toes and call them soldiers who's tactic of choice is terrorism. They differ from the freedom fighters in France during WWII not just because they're on a different side, but because they target civilians and not military infrastructure or personnel.
These soldiers may believe that their ultimate goal is the total destruction of Christianity or the entire western world. I know and you know and the leaders of these soldiers know that this is a tall order. It's probably impossible to kill everyone you don't like. Let me say that I don't believe bin Laden is a fanatic. I don't believe anyone higher in the command structure (the guys who don't blow themselves up) are fanatics.
We could say they are Generals and Colonels. Where the western nation's generals may use an existing command structure and force of will to get things done, these generals use ideas wrought in the distortion and perversion of a good and honest religion to get things done.
This is the same situation as we have in conventional warfare. The guys in the trenches of WWI didn't know anything about the overall plan or what point they were to stop fighting. Each side's soldiers had a single goal in mind, the death of every enemy they saw. It's left to the commanders up and out of the fight to decide what long term goals are.
In summary, the terrorist have long term goals other than the short sighted murder of anything that doesn't appeal to their nature. What are these goals?
As our libertarians say, the terrorists hate us not for our freedom but for our application of it to impose our will upon them. This is undoubtedly true. We (the US) cannot barge into a country and try to enforce trade using our superior position and not piss off somebody. Also, I feel it's pretty obvious that people like bin Laden are in it to secure power. This is one of many reasons for the long winded speeches of fire and brimstone. They inflate clout fairly effectively.
So, we have, at least, two main objectives:
Political: Get the US out of their lands.
Material: Secure some power.
However, now that we've stirred up the beehive, I find it difficult to accept that the enemies we've made will leave us alone if we leave them alone. It would be as if someone committed several murders while trying to buy some milk from the store, and then said, "Oops, my bad, I didn't know I was doin' that. I'll stop now and stay in my home and leave you guys alone. Live and let live, eh?"
We face consequences for our actions, and this is no different. We can change how we face those consequences, but we can't stop them from coming. As long as we're talking about outcomes on the fringes of extreme, I'll throw mine on in there: If we pull out of the middle east, removing our presence, proving to the world once again that we can't finish the job, telling the Iraqis that "not only will we blow up your country, we won't even rebuild it, and we expect to get away with it", losing the resources of having our intel gathering be right in the thick of things. If we do that, we'll see a terrorism forced police-state in the US in a little over a year. Now that's an extremist view point, I think. But, I can see it as a worst case.
Also, of what we have as Americans we owe a good portion to our foreign policy. It was the trade with other nations that got us our material system. We can't damn one without damning the other. Are we as a people fully understanding the gravity of this situation, and the sacrifices an abandonment of the middle east requires?
Phew, if you took the three days required to read that, I hope it explains my position better.
Well most of the crash landings are not intentional -> the pilot tries to minimize the damage and reduce the speed. But in Pentagon crash the plane flew full speed (500mph or so) to a concrete wall.
<a href="http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html" target="_blank">Here</a>'s what happens to F-4 when it flies to a concrete wall. The scale is different but you get the idea.
Loose change is one of these conspiracy videos. Most of its arguments are dull but yet there are some noteworthy. You can see overly critcized version of that here: <a href="http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/" target="_blank">http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/</a>
Here is more unbiased critic for the loose change even though I disagree with some comments: <a href="http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/lo...ange/index.html</a>
What I'm more interested about is WTC7. It just caught on fire and went down in free fall. Even the firemen heard series of explosions. No casuallties. The building had lots of government offices such as CIA's, tax office and something like that. Then I ask why would they take their own building down. :?
<conspiracy>so that people would say "why would they take their own building down?"</conspiracy>
Okay, I don't think I explained myself very well. Let me try again.
The guys who blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings are fanatics, yes. For all intents and purposes, let's step on some toes and call them soldiers who's tactic of choice is terrorism. They differ from the freedom fighters in France during WWII not just because they're on a different side, but because they target civilians and not military infrastructure or personnel.
These soldiers may believe that their ultimate goal is the total destruction of Christianity or the entire western world. I know and you know and the leaders of these soldiers know that this is a tall order. It's probably impossible to kill everyone you don't like. Let me say that I don't believe bin Laden is a fanatic. I don't believe anyone higher in the command structure (the guys who don't blow themselves up) are fanatics.
We could say they are Generals and Colonels. Where the western nation's generals may use an existing command structure and force of will to get things done, these generals use ideas wrought in the distortion and perversion of a good and honest religion to get things done.
This is the same situation as we have in conventional warfare. The guys in the trenches of WWI didn't know anything about the overall plan or what point they were to stop fighting. Each side's soldiers had a single goal in mind, the death of every enemy they saw. It's left to the commanders up and out of the fight to decide what long term goals are.
In summary, the terrorist have long term goals other than the short sighted murder of anything that doesn't appeal to their nature. What are these goals?
As our libertarians say, the terrorists hate us not for our freedom but for our application of it to impose our will upon them. This is undoubtedly true. We (the US) cannot barge into a country and try to enforce trade using our superior position and not piss off somebody. Also, I feel it's pretty obvious that people like bin Laden are in it to secure power. This is one of many reasons for the long winded speeches of fire and brimstone. They inflate clout fairly effectively.
So, we have, at least, two main objectives:
Political: Get the US out of their lands.
Material: Secure some power.
However, now that we've stirred up the beehive, I find it difficult to accept that the enemies we've made will leave us alone if we leave them alone. It would be as if someone committed several murders while trying to buy some milk from the store, and then said, "Oops, my bad, I didn't know I was doin' that. I'll stop now and stay in my home and leave you guys alone. Live and let live, eh?"
We face consequences for our actions, and this is no different. We can change how we face those consequences, but we can't stop them from coming. As long as we're talking about outcomes on the fringes of extreme, I'll throw mine on in there: If we pull out of the middle east, removing our presence, proving to the world once again that we can't finish the job, telling the Iraqis that "not only will we blow up your country, we won't even rebuild it, and we expect to get away with it", losing the resources of having our intel gathering be right in the thick of things. If we do that, we'll see a terrorism forced police-state in the US in a little over a year. Now that's an extremist view point, I think. But, I can see it as a worst case.
Also, of what we have as Americans we owe a good portion to our foreign policy. It was the trade with other nations that got us our material system. We can't damn one without damning the other. Are we as a people fully understanding the gravity of this situation, and the sacrifices an abandonment of the middle east requires?
Phew, if you took the three days required to read that, I hope it explains my position better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I constantly see the phrase "finish the job", but I really don't know what job you're talking about, and how a change of tactics would make completing this "job" impossible. Honestly, you can stop a wildfire by digging ditches and then burning what the wildfire could spread to to contain it, but when the new fire you started catches on and jumps the ditch then getting the ###### out of there and starting over or changing methods does not mean the job isn't getting done. Unless you like fire and the job was making more of it.
Easier explained by the multiple times larger kinetic energy of a normal crash landing, the near head on collision and the consistent propensity of the 9/11 truth movement to be dishonest with the facts or engage in extreme hyperboli. You have to really ignore clean up crew and investigators and in some cases be ignorant of photographic evidence to the contrary and simply claim them as vaporized.
<!--quoteo(post=1640145:date=Jul 22 2007, 01:27 AM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Jul 22 2007, 01:27 AM) [snapback]1640145[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> or how the official report on wtc said that there were no "core columns"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the collapse report alone(http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf) they mention the core columns expressely 95 times. And these are not casual mentions, they even have a full page diagram with the core columns roughly to scale marked in red as early as page 9 along with a mention that the core columns were interconnected with conventional steel beams to support the core floors and mentioning that the core columns taper towards the top of the building. They even have a bloody photograph of a twisted and bent core column from floor 98-100(rolled wide flanged section as used on higher floors) on page 88.
They even provide a companion report on the structure of WTC which mentions the core columns in even greater detail.
To say that they never mention the core columns is very dishonest.
<!--quoteo(post=1640145:date=Jul 22 2007, 01:27 AM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Jul 22 2007, 01:27 AM) [snapback]1640145[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yet theres actual footage from the seventies that shows huge pillars sticking 300 feet in the air when they were bulding the towers<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have never seen a picture of huge pillars sticking 300 feet into the air because the buildings were not constructed that way. They moved in prefabricated core column sections and put them in place as they building progressed; they were at most sticking up a handful of floors above the completed building below.
Pit falls: The 4 corner core columns were especially large and bore 1/5th the vertical load among the core columns. The Lower floors had welded steel box columns and upper floors used mostly rolled wide-flanged sections. The thickness of steel used was higher on lower floors and the core columns tapered towards the top. The core contained numerous express elevators, standard elevators, 3 stair cases, utillity spaces, ventilation and other structures, none of these are structures that support the weight of the building.
<!--quoteo(post=1640145:date=Jul 22 2007, 01:27 AM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Jul 22 2007, 01:27 AM) [snapback]1640145[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i guess it doesnt even matter now what really happened, the war is on and halliburton is making ######loads of money. and fox news keeps the general public passive and acceptive<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I consider the 9/11 truth movement just as complicit as Fox is. You have similar politcal leanings as most of the people who considered this war illegal and disingenous from the beginning; your dishonesty, intentional or otherwise , makes it much so easier to write off dissenters as crackpots, terrorist loving lefties and other ignorant crap.