Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wotan on September 18, 2001, 07:21:00 PM
-
I've reading/watching many things about Osama bin Laden and if he is responsible for the WTC / Pentagon attacks I come away with the suspicion that we (the west) maybe playing into his hands.
It was in afghanistan that Osama made himself known to those taking in part in "Jihad" against godless communism. He has been for sometime locked inside afghanistan with several hundred of the same fellows who fought with him in russo/afghan war.
It has been reported that as a result of the withdrawl of the russians from afghanistan that the mujahideen became even more fanatical in their views toward the west.
There are numerous possibilities as to the causes for the hatred demonstrated against the US by some fundalmentalist Muslims. But what seemed to push osama into action against the US is the fact infidel troops are now stationed within the land of the 2 most holiest mosques within islam.
After Sudan asked Osama to leave he has been in afghanistan the place of the mujahideen's greatest victory against an infidel army in centuries.
If he is responsible for the attacks last week could he be trying to recreate this victory by dragging the west into the same type of war.
If we kill him he will most certainly become a martyr to the fundamentalist.
Do we really want to become entrenched in such a war with no possibility of ending it?
There will almost certainly be reprisals against the west and most certainly the next osama may rise out of the ashes of this one.
Angrier filled with more hatred and willing to push the bounds beyond what happened in New York. Are England France Germany Canada Russia resolute enough to stand by the US even if casualties rise.
Justice demands we act but does anyone else dread what might come of it?
Enough bravado and chest thumping even if we get osama easily in a covert op terrorism has been pushed to the next step.
This thread is about thought and consideration of the new world we maybe entering. Please keep the "nuke the ragheads" replies in those other threads all ready filled with that crap.
-
I think the best way to bust terrorism, after we kill a toejame load of them, is to follow the money..
Without the funds from various country/groups/individuals the network will dry up and at the same time those funds can be used to get the US/global enconomy back on track. I'd start with the SOB's who shorted the airline stocks last Tuesday..
-
just read a report osama doesnt have the money most think. He has fund raisers that are done under different fronts and the money is distributed by persons well removed from laden himself.
Thats the theory theres no hard evidence to implicate the money men.
-
the koran does not call christians and jews infidels, infidels are people who do not believe in god/allah.
Islam forbids the killing of innocent women and children, so it is binladen who has broken faith with allah.
this war will not be like the russo-afgan war , then the afgan had the support of many countries including USA.
Now it is only the taliban and binladens gang, iran ( which hates the taliban) has closed the eastern border, russian troops are in the north border,the anti-taliban afgan army ( 30,000 battle-hardend afgans) controls the east and has said they will support the USA, in the south you have NATO, there will be no resupply of the taliban this time, they can't fight a 10 year war with no resupply.
PS. i keep hearing about how the afgans defeated the british army 200 years ago (like that has any bearing on 2001)
200 years ago the US defeated the british army with a rag-tag army of farmboys and shop clerks, ( and a little help from the french)
-
He's a terrorist, and he's gonna die.
So are any others we find.
There's a War going against Terrorisim last time I checked.
-
"PS. i keep hearing about how the afgans defeated the british army 200 years ago (like that has any bearing on 2001)
200 years ago the US defeated the british army with a rag-tag army of farmboys and shop clerks, ( and a little help from the french)
"
nice angle...
-
On the funding side, I would take 2 measures:
First: Go to each and every tax haven and seize each and every asset in them. Without questioning. Full embargo. Then, I would turn the charge of the proof on the other side. Anyone willing to recover his assets would have to justify where they come from, and their usage for last, say 5 years. Anyone means physical person, no trusts or corporations allowed. In tax haven concept I would include Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
Second: I would enforce transparency. Any corporation would have to make public statement of their shareholders. I'm thinking on some kind or central registration office for the whole world. In case of the shareholders being corporations, trusts, etc., such corporations, trusts, shareholders should be made public. That chain until a physical person is found. Whenever the chain is broken and no physical person can be tracked, it's shares are nullified, Social Capital reduced accordingly, and shares amortized. Any corporation not listed here, would be forbidden to make business. This way we would know some names. It's crucial that we can name the suspects in this side of the problem
On the military side...the more I look at It, the less sense I see in attacking Afghanistan first. I mean, it HAS to be attacked, no matter what they do now. But I doubt severely that they would have to be in the first place. The reasons are:
- It has no relevant military targets
- It has no strategic vaule, at the time being
- It's a terrain that favours enormously the deffender.
- Even if we are able to occupy the whole of it, won't guarantee the capture of bin Laden.
- Even if we are able to occupy the whole of it, won't solve the problem or be a significant step ahead.
Instead, if Irak ties with terrorists are proved, I would shift the military action there, to begin with. Occupy the country, and expropriate Oil resources. The reasons:
- It's a rogue state by all means.
- It's easier for mechanized forces.
- Favours the attacker.
- We've been there.
- It's leader have to be removed as well.
- It has relevant military targets.
- We would be sending a strong, sharp and clear message to collaborators. This is crucial, in my oppinion, as I think there lies the heart of the problem.
- In the eyes of muslims, won't be worse than attacking Afghanistan, and might be better tollerated.
I think we face a situation similar to that machines where you have to hammer some guy's head, while it arises briefly from spread holes. If we want to win, there is no need to hammer them. In fact, that's what the owner wants. We playing, and paying to play. If we want to win we need to things: unplug the machine, and kill the owner. As for political correctness, you can say imprision, expropriate, or whatever other kind word you want, instead of kill. I don't think I'll use them.
Cheers,
Pepe.
-
The question here is not whether we should worry about insulting or hurting everyone's view points / opinions here. The bottom line is this, unless the US retaliates with a severe response, these fundamentalists will continue to murder innocents. If we want this to stop, we have to be willing to go in there and do things most Americans consider "incorrect". Make no mistake, this is a war, but a war unlike any other we have seen. This is one that is not only going to be fought their, but over here. Our collective response needs to be ruthless.
-
What Hangtime said.
Simply stated, it's a war against terrorism, and he won't be the only target. Once it starts, I'm sure there will be reprisals against the west.
Apparently Osama is already wanted for terrorist actions against the US on previous occasions, so whether or not he is responsible for 9-11-01 is moot, we'll still go after him based on previous activities.
Yes, I do want to become entrenched in a war against terrorism, no matter how long it takes.
No matter what action the US takes there will be reprecussions against us. Do nothing, and they will strike again. Do something, and you piss fanatics off even more. It's a no-win situation and it's going to be ugly.
-
There are numerous possibilities as to the causes for the hatred demonstrated against
the US by some fundalmentalist Muslims. But what seemed to push osama into action against the US is the fact infidel troops are now stationed within the land of the 2 most holiest mosques within islam.
====
Woton,
Where is the land with the 2 most holiest mosques within Islam?
Exactly who are these infidel troops?
And why are they infidels?
Yeager
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Yeager ]
-
Yeaguer,
3 sacred places in Islam:
Mecca (sp?) 1st. holy place, and end to the pilgrimage each muslim has to make at least once in his lifetime.
Medina: 2nd holy place, place where Muhammad hided in his exile.
Jerusalem: 3rd. holy place. The Rock Mosque is the second in importance, after Mecca's one.
Mecca & Medina are in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. troops are stationed.
Both U.S. & Israeli troops are infidels. To a muslim, any other religion is "infidel". Even the mildest muslim is very strict in his intollerance about other religions. This extend to no atheists or agnostics.
I'm talking by heart, so anyone with better information, please correct me.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
That the Afghans beat the British over 200 years ago is no surprise. The army in question was predominantly made up of native soldiers bolstered by a small British force, and was in retreat from Kabul I believe. It also carried with it an extensive bagage train. Couple all that with the fact that the Afghans were highly mobile mounted troops using the terrain to their advantage, and you can probably see why the outcome was as it was.
The terrain is the Afghan's best ally - always has been, always will be.
-
Once we start the draft, and are entrenched in war, I wonder if Canada will get as many dodgers as they did in the 60's?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Once we start the draft,
Who said we're going to?
Being the only son (not only sibling though), I can not be drafted.
Nuts to that, I'll enlist if I have to!
-SW
-
Saudi Arabia
US troops
godless individuals (percieved by osama)
osama doesn't view America as a Judeo-Christian Nation we represnt the great Satan these are not just words or propaganda. They actually beleave it.
<short very short history>
Osama informed the Saudis that Iraq would in all likely hood occupy Kuwait. When the Iraqis did it was his wish that the mujahideen be used (or atleast all muslim troops) be used to expel the Iraqis. Most Islamic nations allied themselves with the west. Some speculate that the Saudis were fearfull of Osama and the mujahideen would not stop at freeing kuwait.
When US troops went to the gulf most entered through Baharain(sp) but to the digust of a large portion of the muslim world we sent troops (at the invite of the Saudis) to be stationed in Saudi Arabi. This was a direct insult to their religious beliefs.
It was at this point when Osama became an agitator in Saudi Arabi. He opposes the Saudi royal family and describes them as "corrupt". He then exiled himself to Sudan.
It was here he started several buisness and took with him about 200 members of the afghan resistance.
We then have 2 buildings which house us troops within Saudi Arabi truck bombed. Sudan asks Osama to leave he goes back to afghanistan. Hes then implicated in the embacy bombings in africa. He is implicated in the "millenium plot" (numerous targets in america and abroad were planned to be hit but were stopped in time). Then the US cole was bombed.
He has been pushing it futher and further. Now the WTC/Pentagon. What next.
dont over analyz my choice of words. They were used for affect to demonstrate the thought process of osama and crew. At least thats how I percieve it.
Word games and all please adress the situation that I attempted to describe.
"Is it possible that Osama is dragging us into a type of war based on the Russian model"
"if so are we prepared to go the distance and how far are our allies prepared to go "
The Russians who historically are willing to take many more casualties then most armies were there for 10 years.
Also we can look to Chechnya where the russians were engaged much the same way as they were in afghanistan and have paid a large price not only in troops but in terror attacks through out that country.
I dont care nothing for the "kill um all " bravado. Most of you aren't going there and you know as well as I we (our government) wont do that. At worse we will be occupying afghanistan and at best we will interupt terrorism short term. In the long run though we must prepare ourselves for the terrorists to push the boundry further then they did in the attacks of last week.
There are other threads here for your bravado I was hoping for a relatively well thought discussion. oh well...........
<edit>
the terrorist network osama is allied with is called al qaeda. Its not an traditional organization. While Osama may represent its spiritual head it seems to mirror the concept of "leaderless resistance".
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
It's simple Wotan, if we don't act and ignore it or let it be- then the terrorists will find bigger and better ways to get our attentions. Small tactical nukes and bio-chem weapons if they can get their hands on it. Are you willing to let half your civilian population die because you can't stomach the death that this war might bring?
Don't think last Tuesday was a warning, or a one time threat- there will be more and more than likely bigger attacks.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, the only way to deal with terrorism *IS* to kill them. They don't care for justice, or if we issue them subpeonas... they will surrender with bombs strapped to their chests.
The only way out for them is death, and this was illustrated in great detail last Tuesday.
Make no mistake, terrorism is not something you can stop with pen and paper.
-SW
-
Justice demands we act but does anyone else dread what might come of it?
SW
I guess you missed this part of my original post.
No nation can let stand this crime of terror.
Given that how do we deal with it?
Do you think killing Osama bin laden will stop terrorism?
Most just want revenge which is normal. Is calling for a nuclear response the right thing to do. Is occuping Afghanistan the right thing to do.
I make no statement of belief or direction or action that we should take I'm only asking questions.
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
There are numerous possibilities as to the causes for the hatred demonstrated against
the US by some fundalmentalist Muslims. But what seemed to push osama into action against the US is the fact infidel troops are now stationed within the land of the 2 most holiest mosques within islam.
====
Woton,
Where is the land with the 2 most holiest mosques within Islam?
Exactly who are these infidel troops?
And why are they infidels?
Yeager
yeah golly! i wouldn't mind if a foreign moslem military installation was built in my town - or all over north america for that instance- why do they have trouble with it?
why, if some foreign arab power had bases all over north america, i would never get the idea that they were being imperialistic. i would just think they were super-duper nice. why do those silly arabs feel that way? :confused:
why, most americans in suburbia would be super tolerant and supportive of a foreign arab miltary with moslem ideals whose daily actions broke sacred holdings of christianity spending furloughs at my favorite hangout, why can't those pesky arabs just get used to us living in their holy place and not following their traditions and obeying their religious laws?
i'd even want some of americas christians to convert to islam because they were exposed to it by this arab army base and i'd really want some of my friends to abandon their faith and open institutions that would pander to their specific needs. maybe a turbin store?? after all they're our guests!!!
shucks i tell ya i just don't get it? how could they possibly not just loooove us?
:confused:
(ps - here is the obligatory disclaimer for all you cap'n kirks just looking for a chance to rip your shirt open:
i don't support the actions of terrorists, violence is abhorent against unwary civilians, my flag is waving, my jaw is shakey and my saber is rattling too. etc etc...
the point is - i hope you can see the reasons they MIGHT harbor hatred - if not, then the end is truly near because we have become a big, blind, bloated, self absorbed naieve nation. and that would suck. we ought to be able to see this stuff coming. i hope it's a wake up call on a few levels)
-
Fish,
They might look at it that way.
You'd think they'd also look at it the other way...
They seemed pretty happy to see us when Saddam was knocking on their door.
This is typical.. it's Kipling's poem all over again.
We're bloody heroes when their bellybutton is in the sling and we're there to do the dying for them.
Now we're a bunch of ugly infidels. :rolleyes:
I have no problem with that, actually. I wish we had packed up and totally left the region as soon as the smoke cleared. But we didn't... mainly because they still have a pitiful excuse for a military and the same situation exists with Kuwait... while Iraq has steadily been rebuilding its military.
(oh, btw... I do think we're way more tolerant than they will ever be.)
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
SW
I guess you missed this part of my original post.
Sure did, I thought you were a tree huggin' hippy. ;)
Originally posted by Wotan:
Given that how do we deal with it?
Do you think killing Osama bin laden will stop terrorism?
I don't know how to deal with it, I think the ultimate goal is to find out what cells exist- how many cells there are, who's in the cells, where they are located, what they plan on striking and generally finding out where they will move before they move there, and where they will move in the next year, etc. In other words, to better combat terrorism- we have to think as a terrorist and figure out what their motives are, etc.
I do not believe that killing or capturing Bin Laden will do anything. As a matter of fact, I believe getting just him will further antagonize the other cells and perhaps they will see that as a better reason to crush the infidels in the west.
I believe, and I hope I am right, based on what I have heard that we are not only targetting Bin Laden- just that he is the focal point of the initial operations. Perhaps capture him and as many as his cronies as we can in the first wave (what kind of wave? I have no idea...) and get information out of them as to who, when, where, how and why of the other cells.
Originally posted by Wotan:
Most just want revenge which is normal. Is calling for a nuclear response the right thing to do. Is occuping Afghanistan the right thing to do.
Nuclear response is not even close to right or even acceptable by anyone in power. What I mean is, it's a last ditch weapon. It has been used twice (Fat Man and Little Boy) before and it's the only times the need to use it was clearly brought forth. Of course, the reasons behind that one were to avoid further loss of American and Allieds lives if they had to actually come ashore on Japan.
Will it be the same with this? Well, we still don't have a clearly defined enemy as far as territory goes. We can't hap-hazardly drop nukes and assume we got the bad guys amongst the millions of innocent or good guys that are no longer living.
Do I believe occupying Afghanistan is the answer? Depends, I think it's all going to depend on where the chips fall. What I mean by that is that it depends who takes sides. If Afghanistan openly harbors terrorists and threatens the US and any of her Allies if they come near them, then it's clear that Afghanistan is against us and is therefore an enemy. This gives us a clear objective in terms of territory of operations.
I think it's all up in the air right now, Bin Laden is the prime suspect for Tuesday- but if he's not the one who masterminded it, then he might be put on the back burner until we get the guy responsible for Tuesday and all of his cohorts. This is going to require systematically finding and destroying cells, and their leaders in various nations.
Simply put, it will not be simple at all. This will be one of the most complex "wars" ever fought, our enemy has no defined territory, our enemy has no defined face, and worst of all- we might not even see our enemies until after they've discharged their weapons(meaning suicide bombings, etc).
Originally posted by Wotan:
I make no statement of belief or direction or action that we should take I'm only asking questions.
I understand now, I apologize for my previous post. I hope this is what you were looking for.
-SW
-
heh that's true, never welcome until the sh*t hits the fan...but if that's the way they see us screw it.
that's how i feel about our interests in the entire world toad: i'm tired of being where we're not wanted and playing world cop. if we really want this new world order let's empower and 'de-token-ize' the u.n. - not have the u.s. just pop up to take the heat for the moves and interests of the west.
-
Fish, just wait till it gets down to the nutcuttin'.
We'll find our who our "friends" are soon enough.
Eventually, there will be enough proof available against a nation-state... I'm thinking it'll likely be Iraq from the reading I'm doing... that a military strike WILL be a legitimate, realistic almost inevitable response. It was an act of war.
Then let's see who's standing next to us, ready to bring the wrath of the Islamic terr's against themselves.
Talk is cheap. Let's see who shares the foxholes with us.
I'm betting there'll be plenty of empty foxholes all around us.
That's OK too. We know we have to do it, alone or otherwise.
-
On Wednesday, President Bush told reporters during a meeting with Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri in the Oval Office that the war against terror is not just against bin Laden and his organization, al Qaeda.
"This is a war not against a specific individual, nor will it be a war against solely one organization," "It is a war against terrorist activities."
If Mr. Bush has the balls to follow through on his promises (and I'm hoping he does) we're going to have a lot more to worry about than just bin Laden or al Qaeda. There's a much bigger picture here than just what happened last week.