Most UK papers have the same picture, though the captions are different.
Just to put this new thread at the top of the page.
2. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 9:52:25 AM
so...
how does a nation cope with all of this. will a sense of normalcy ever be established in America again?
was this another Pearl Harbor? as an American who only has Desert Storm to remember, can we go to war with a faction? with a insane group of people who are basically cultists? is it a war we can win?
share all your thoughts about September 11, 2001 here. where were you and what were you doing? where you affected by the bombings in a personal way? if so, how?
3. jonesatlaw - 9/12/2001 9:55:38 AM
Nothing in my life to date has scared me more than seeing AF One over Omaha. I saw it fly over my house as I brought my son home from school. I grew up expecting that if the president went to the underground that I wouldn't live out the day.
I'm glad they brought him here before going back to Washington. Screw political appearances, security comes first. It's a new scary world, but I'm not vaporized. I am very sad, and very angry. We will survive these attacks scarred more in psyche than in body.
There is no way to conduct terrorism on this scale without a large orgainization and if not the assistance of a nation, at least tolerance. Bin Ladin cannot be hauling around his millions in suitcases. He can't be obtaining the weapons and conducting the training without the knowledge or approval of host states. They must be punished as complicit in the terror. This must be attacked at all levels. By small scale actions, spies on the lowest level, and by massive military intelligence gathering and retaliation.
4. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:01:09 AM
here's another question:
how fair is it to bomb and destroy a country like, say, Afghanistan for the actions of someone not even a member of their government?
i am not saying don't go after such a country, but how much will be too much? what if the mastermind has touched several countries? are we willing, as a nation, to go to war with a large section of the world to stop this madman, assuming he can be -- couldn't this turn into another Vietnam?
5. Macnas - 9/12/2001 10:01:36 AM
I'm really wary of posting here, I feel that my foot will get jammed in my mouth and I'll say something that will hurt someone.
I went out last night with a mate of mine and we watched the telly repeat over and over, from different angles and perspectives the WTC being destroyed.
"Pinch me or something, this is a bad dream" said Mick. I felt the same. When I was first told of the incident I honestly thought it was a hoax, a bad taste joke of some kind. The enormity of it all, it was just dreamlike.
I called my brother later on, even though he lives on the west coast for gods sake. He said all are loaded for bear, he's got his pre-ban items to hand, he doesnt know what will happen next.
I had a few drinks too many, I should have been a bit drunk, but I wasn't. The disbelief seemed to negate the alcohol. The world wide implications the acute suffering in New York, it was and is overwhelming, and I am far away from you all.
Tell me what is going on now, what happened to you.
6. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:12:37 AM
To answer the questions:
1. Yes, America will be normal again. This is an external enemy using different weapons against us, but they are not the Nazis. This is not the Civil War. They're not even the Russians. I hope we're still able to take a better punch than was delivered yesterday, or our society is tissue paper.
2. We are at war, so it's useless to ask whether we can go to war. We have no choice. And if you are in a war, between victory and defeat there is also no choice.
7. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:13:09 AM
This is going to be the roughest time. The stories of the dead and the bereaved will pour out without no suspects identified or retailiation meted out.
8. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:14:37 AM
without suspects....
9. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:15:20 AM
can we go to war with a faction?
Barbary pirates
10. Rama - 9/12/2001 10:16:57 AM
Over and over, I have heard people say that it doesn't seem real: that it seems it must be a hoax or a movie.
It strikes me as much more like a Pearl Harbor event. The result of Pearl Harbor was the first use of atomic weapons to end a war.
I think the result of "World Trade Center" will be a new type of foreign policy, where using national sovereignty as a shield for international terrorism, and its flip side, supporting international terrorists as a means of foreign policy, will no longer be accepted as other than an act of war.
11. theDiva - 9/12/2001 10:18:26 AM
Flight paths of hijacked planes
12. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:18:27 AM
Isn't the West the only fool who follows that notion anyway?
13. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:18:47 AM
The military command center in Colorado's Cheyenne Mountain, responsible for U.S. air defenses, received word just 10 minutes before the first aircraft struck the World Trade Center that a American plane had been hijacked
14. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:22:09 AM
What notion? Declarations of war?
I am not sure we've followed that notion very well.
In any event, the constitution was written for an age of nation states and even at the time war was waged against non-nations (in the Western sense) - indians and Barbary pirates come to mind.
15. JRoth - 9/12/2001 10:22:28 AM
There is incredible activity in the security community. Some heads have already been effectively removed. The current buzz is that Bin Laden could not have done this by himself or solely with his immediate organization. This operation took years to setup. I anticipate that he had assistance from freelance operatives- possibly ex-Eastern European- who organised crucial aspects of this exceedingly complex operation. Bin Laden's support and infrastructure in the US is too closely observed and penetrated to have had planned and executed this assault. A parallel and compartmented organisation was used. I repeat that this parallel group was led by highly professional operatives who probably motivated by old animus as well as material incentives.
Kissinger is right: The full response must eradicated the sources of the terrorist network- including those states known or even suspected of complicity or support. This strategy will take years to implement and will engender a new set of criteria by which Americans judge friend and foe.
16. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:22:39 AM
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) was preparing to call for more military spending at a news conference at the time of the attacks.
"This is a failure of the U.S. intelligence system, caused by a lack of resources and by complacency," he said. "Today, our government failed the American public."
Amen.
17. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:25:39 AM
jexster: I'm talking about the notion that national sovereignty is a shield for protecting terrorists.
Instead of violating national sovereignty to be global good cop, it's time for some self defense.
18. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:28:05 AM
The U.S. government has strong evidence from multiple sources that the suicidal terrorists who carried out yesterday's catastrophic attacks in New York and Washington were connected to Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, who previously was linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, senior officials said.
U.S. Intelligence Points to Bin Laden Network
SFO newsconference: No flights by noon are possible given new security guidelines, in opinion of Airport Director.
19. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:28:39 AM
hopefully, the NMD money will go to beefing up our intelligence systems
20. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:38:16 AM
Yeah. We don't need NMD. No so-called "rogue nation" would be CRAZY enough to launch a major attack on an American city which could be easily traced back to them.
Right, rubberfucker?
I mean, it's not like we've unraveled the WTC mystery in a scant 24 hours.
21. alistairconnor - 9/12/2001 10:40:21 AM
The planes-as-bombs scenario poses a serious problem with respect to nuclear power stations.
Yes, they are designed to withstand the impact of a plane crash. Specifically (in France), the impact of a Cessna or of a Lear jet.
Not of a 747 full of fuel.
22. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:40:32 AM
PS-- an NMD would have had no problem knocking a slow-moving PLANE out of the sky.
23. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:41:47 AM
24. vw - 9/12/2001 10:42:07 AM
Shut up Ace. Some of us are still waiting to hear about what really matters... where our friends are and why we haven't heard from them yet.
The last fucking thing we need to hear is your knee-jerk, unthinking, ignorant “bomb the sand niggers” bullshit.
25. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:42:09 AM
I think NMD is orthogonal to increased security and a more aggressive response, but no one will ever be able to say that it will protect us from every eventuality again.
26. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:43:07 AM
whatever Ace. the fact of the matter is, if we keep on top of these things, a 'rogue nation' couldn't get nukes pointed at us, much less get off a shot, without our knowing.
one of the things that is sad about this is that pro-NMD defense people will further entrench themselves as will the anti-NMD people and we'll get further from any agreement rather than closer.
27. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:44:27 AM
I watched an interview with the leading Osama Bin Laden expert Yoram Schweitzer who is fairly certain that OBL was responsible for the WTC and Pentagon bombings. He also believes that Iran might be a financial partner.
The link I provided (do a simple websearch on google, too) provides a great archive of research on OBL.
28. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:45:58 AM
vw: The reason why you have to wonder where your friends are and why you haven't heard from them yet is your enemy. Not Ace.
29. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:46:13 AM
the NMD money will go to beefing up our intelligence systems
That's what I suggested yesterday and concerned ridiculed me for it.
Boy, airport security at Logan is coming under fire on CNN...evidently, two women found an abandoned knapsack in the terminal and took it to security and they reacted in a rather blasé manner, telling them to call some number and report it and they didn't even bother to look in it!
30. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:47:51 AM
PS-- an NMD would have had no problem knocking a slow-moving PLANE out of the sky.
sure, Ace, okay.
we are going to blow our own plane sky out of the sky with OUR OWN CITIZENS on it.
that'll happen. you've watched one too many Steven Segall movies.
31. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:48:37 AM
These are the topics in this website of his:
Suicide Bombings August 7, 2001
The “Bin Laden Principle” August 4, 2001
The Search for Justice: July 17, 2001
Bin Laden Productions, Ltd. June 28, 2001
Iranian Transnational terrorism May 24, 2001
Osama Bin Laden - Threat or Myth? May 5, 2001
A Necessary, if Unsavory, Policy April 24, 2001
The Matter of Osama bin Ladin April 17, 2001
The Al-Aqsa Intifada: April 4, 2001
Massive Response or Surgical Strike? February 20, 2001
The Immediate Lessons of the Lockerbie Verdict January 31, 2001
The ‘Afghan Alumni’ Terrorism November 6, 2000
Does Bin Laden Pose a Threat to Israel? August 22, 2000
Suicide Terrorism: Development & Characteristics April 21, 2000
Osama bin Ladin and the Egyptian Terrorist Groups June 25, 1999
Bin Ladin vs. the West:
Round Two January 10, 1999
The Lessons of Lockerbie December 21, 1998
Responding to Terrorism--the American Dilemma September 2, 1998
Abu Nidal - The Sooner the Better August 25, 1998
Osama Bin Ladin: Wealth plus Extremism Equals Terrorism July 27, 1998
The Arrest of Mohammed Rashid - Another Point for the Americans June 7, 1998
32. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:48:41 AM
"I think NMD is orthogonal to increased security and a more aggressive response, but no one will ever be able to say that it will protect us from every eventuality again."
No one ever said that BEFORE; why the fuck would they say it "again"?
Fucking idiot.
Yeah, Cal, we claimed that NMD would protect us from "every eventuality," such as ship-smuggled bombs and planes and missiles never detected by radar. We just figgered it would be some sort of magic. Operated by leprechauns, perhaps.
""Shut up Ace. Some of us are still waiting to hear about what really matters ... where our friends are and why we haven't heard from them yet.
The last fucking thing we need to hear is your knee-jerk, unthinking, ignorant “bomb the sand niggers” bullshit. "
Shut up you stupid little uneducated haus-frau whore. I'm one of the people waiting to hear from absent friends, you dumb cunt.
And by the way, bitch: We're going to bomb the sandniggers, and it's going to have been a long time coming and it's going to feel good. The only questions are "Conventional, fuel-air, or nukes?" and "How many countries, one, two, or seven?"
Eat me, you stupid bint.
33. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:49:52 AM
an NMD would have had no problem knocking a slow-moving PLANE out of the sky.
But it couldn't read the minds of the terrorists flying it into the WTC...could it?
34. vw - 9/12/2001 10:50:23 AM
The reason why you have to wonder where your friends are and why you haven't heard from them yet is your enemy. Not Ace.
Please. I am not a two-year old. But apparently Ace and others like him are. For it is people with a two-year-old’s mentality that wants to make everyone “hurt” when they hurt.
I want the people that did this to suffer. I want every individual who financed a ticket, trained a pilot, provided transportation or held a weapon to suffer for this. But desiring the detonation of nuclear weapons and horribly murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent, powerless and ignorant people is as barbaric and as ultimately senseless as the bombing yesterday.
35. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:50:54 AM
"we are going to blow our own plane sky out of the sky with OUR OWN CITIZENS on it. "
No, fag. We're just going to let the plane plow into another city, asshole.
PS, Fag: The air force wanted to scramble jets to shoot the planes down but there wasn't enough time.
I guess you didn't hear that, right?
Probably too busy being "understanding." Or perhaps too busy getting fucked up the ass.
36. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:50:55 AM
My guess at this point is two countries, no nukes.
37. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:51:23 AM
Jeez, Ace, you're really comforting in a crisis.
38. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 10:51:37 AM
bint?
39. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:52:24 AM
It means "Cunt" in Britain.
40. vw - 9/12/2001 10:52:51 AM
Shut up you stupid little uneducated haus-frau whore.
At least get it right... I have seveal degrees ... so I'm an ivory tower educated cunt.
Despite your ignorance, stupidity and unthinking desire for meaningless revenge, I'm sorry that you too are waiting to hear. I wouldn't wish this agony on anyone.
It's horrible ... I have called every phone number there is to call and still know nothing.
41. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:53:05 AM
"Please. I am not a two-year old."
Mmm-hm.
42. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:53:19 AM
Anger therapy works for me sometimes.
43. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:53:32 AM
Curiously, it is also a woman's name in Muslim countries.
44. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:55:07 AM
vw,
Did you hear the "rumor" on Fox news that the pilots were trained here in the US at an International flight school. Do you still want the innocent Americans who trained these terrorists to be punished?
45. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:55:42 AM
Ace,
Don't be an ass. Of course proponents have touted it as the be all end all; that's what they said to justify the price tag.
46. Oceans11 - 9/12/2001 10:56:40 AM
> I'm one of the
people waiting to hear from absent friends, you dumb cunt.
Karma's a bitch.
47. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:56:50 AM
Re: Message # 35, AceofSpades.
No, fag. We're just going to let the plane plow into another city, asshole.
you really are hopeless if you think we're gonna blow our own plane out of the sky if there is the slightest hint that we can get our people out. (hint: can't determine that in space)
PS, Fag: The air force wanted to scramble jets to shoot the planes down but there wasn't enough time.
exactly why it wouldn't be shot out of the sky from space.
Probably too busy being "understanding." Or perhaps too busy getting fucked up the ass.
eh, at least i get some from my significant other. the way you masturbate all over theMote, i suspect it isn't that often you do.
48. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:59:03 AM
The U.S. is not going to up the ante with nukes, just as it refused to do so in Vietnam. But there will be massive retaliation. It is a given. The question only is where.
49. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 10:59:10 AM
I'm pretty sure that this is the part where Denzel Washington implores, "Don't you see? Don't you see? They got us fighting amongst ourselves."
50. glendajean - 9/12/2001 10:59:24 AM
The next thing ... if it comes ... could be one of those weapons of mass destruction. Not an a-bomb, but some biological poisoning.
This is very scary.
Today on the Today Show, they had survivors talk about the falling bodies, people who jumped in groups of two or three, holding hands. The heat and smoke was too intense.
51. judithathome - 9/12/2001 11:00:07 AM
Do you still want the innocent Americans who trained these terrorists to be punished?
Don't fall into the trap of attacking those who have different opinions than you. You know that's not what she meant.
52. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:01:05 AM
"Don't be an ass. Of course proponents have touted it as the be all end all; that's what they said to justify the price tag."
Name one such proponent, liar; then supply the quote.
Stupid dipshit.
53. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:02:39 AM
Is it time for us to start getting anthrax shots? To stockpile some cipro or doxycycline in our homes?
54. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:03:33 AM
"The U.S. is not going to up the ante with nukes, just as it refused to do so in Vietnam"
Well, we're not going to invade, and conventional bombing would be a pin-prick, Asprin factory affair.
What's left, precisely, Ronski?
As mentioned earlier, champion pussyboy William "Dickless" Cohen brought up the nuclear option on Nightline, shocking Ted "Wifey" Koppel. And Cohen brought it up as more than a farfetched possibility.
55. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:04:42 AM
"Don't you see? Don't you see? They got us fighting amongst ourselves."
Yeah. We can't do this, or they win.
56. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:05:09 AM
There's a rumor from Venice, FL that the sheriff's department has surrounded a house containing a man said to have trained one or more of the hijackers to fly.
57. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:07:15 AM
Ace,
You're right, Cohen and others are talking about it. But it still is raising the ante, and I doubt this administration has the balls to do it.
They can inflict a lot of damage by carpet bombing, is my guess.
58. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 11:09:56 AM
Most UK papers have the same picture, though the captions are different.
59. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:11:14 AM
Exactly (to the carpet bombing). I think we can do a lot of damage; wasn't it Vonnegut who always harped on the Dresden fire bombing?
60. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:12:39 AM
"They can inflict a lot of damage by carpet bombing, is my guess."
You can't really carpet-bomb a Stone Age nation like Afghanistan -- or Vietnam -- and expect it to have much impact.
Advanced nations rely on the sort of buildings and amenities which, if destroyed, disrupt civilization. Primative nations don't.
What are we going to do, bomb each wheat field and goat in the fucking country? Because that's pretty much all a stone age country needs.
61. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:13:39 AM
"wasn't it Vonnegut who always harped on the Dresden fire bombing"
Dresden had these things called "buildings," "vehicles," and "power plants" which burn when you blow them up.
62. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:13:44 AM
Ace
I think that the retaliation may very well include combat troops of the variety that can be inserted and evacuated within a short period of time. Let's face it. Conventional bombing has its limitations, and the cruise missiles are becoming almost passe'. They have their uses, but the best actions are those where the military is inserted after the artillery has softened the belly of the beast.
Ronski is correct. Cohen must have been loopy.
63. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:15:14 AM
Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five with Dresden as the backdrop to his novel.
64. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:17:01 AM
I don't think you take nukes off the table. Not at this point.
If nothing else, let the enemy think about it for a while.
65. PsychProf - 9/12/2001 11:17:08 AM
Ace...I hope the best for your downtown friends and colleagues.
Prof
66. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:18:36 AM
"I think that the retaliation may very well include combat troops of the variety that can be inserted and evacuated within a short period of time."
Ah! You mean lightly-armed paratroopers! Pefect! Another Mogadishu Special!
I'm glad to see such innovative military thinking here! I can only hope GWB is getting counsel of similar quality!
"Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five with Dresden as the backdrop to his novel."
I know. I read it. Ten times. Whom you were sharing this with I'm not sure.
67. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 11:18:57 AM
I posted this in I&P:
Ace:
Well, what's done is done: 1991 was 1991. This is ten years later, Vietnam was a long time ago, and you can do this without nukes, but you'll have to be willing to lose some servicemen. That's all. You can't do everything from the air, you know. You call the Arab terrorists cowards, which they are, but they are at least willing to die for their cause. You risk getting branded as cowards too if you are consistently afraid to risk ground confrontation.
68. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:19:32 AM
Remember what Schwartzkopf has been saying on the tube, that in Iraq the U.S. tried to minimize civilian casualties, but the difference between us and them (the terrorists) is that they want to maximize collateral damage. It's the whole point of terrorism.
The nukes on Japan had a strategic value, and most people understand that today. The Dresden fire bombing had none, and among the few who remember it there is still unease that such a thing was permitted (and yes, I do believe the German nation, including my blood relatives over there, bore responsibility for letting Hitler come to power).
Nukes in the mideast will have no strategic value. It will just suggest to people that nuclear weapons are to be used as if they were no different than conventional weapons. But they are different.
This administration will not want to go down in history as the one which made nuclear warfare acceptable.
69. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 11:21:27 AM
I think that humiliation would be far more effective in dealing with Afghanistan.
Capture all leading terrorists groups (insert Mohammed -------- here) surround the capitol with troops, dismantle the Taliban completely, uplift the strict Islamic codes.
Hell, fly an American flag there too.
70. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:22:37 AM
ronski: I'm not saying use them. I'm saying don't immediately discount the possibility.
And this administration doesn't want to go down in history as several magnitudes worse than Jimmy Carter's either.
71. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:23:05 AM
My point about Schwarzkopf is that he still represents the thinking in the Pentagon today, which is measured and cautious. People with such a mindset are not going to introduce nukes back into the world.
72. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2001 11:24:18 AM
Diva- Thanks for the link.
It seems as if one of the planes simply flew to the Hudson River and followed it south.
The audacity and simplicity of this act was awesome and malevolently ingenious.
I found Maureen Dowd's contrast of NY & DC compelling:
" . . .For much of the day we weren't sure where the president was. There were statements floating in from him from various secure zones in the air or underground. The vice president was out of sight. We didn't know where the first lady was. The secretary of state was in the air somewhere. The Capitol had been evacuated. Congressional leaders had gone off to a bunker somewhere. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could not be immediately accounted for. The C.I.A. and F.B.I. were stunned. Most vividly at his post was Donald Rumsfeld, who helped rescue victims at the Pentagon and stayed all day in the smoky command center. "
73. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:24:55 AM
Ace
I was sharing it with the world. As for your fear of Mogadishu, your thoughts as to the ineffective nature of carpet bombing are true, but they also rebut your likening the use of combat troops against non-urban terrorist camps to the use of combat troops in Mogadishu, a city.
I understand your enthusiasm for the nuclear option, but it is not going to happen, and the second most-effective rooting out of terrorist cells will be massive bombing followed by shooting the numbed enemy right between the eyes.
It may even be so important that we - gasp! - risk casualties.
74. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:25:17 AM
"Remember what Schwartzkopf has been saying on the tube, that in Iraq the U.S. tried to minimize civilian casualties, but the difference between us and them (the terrorists) is that they want to maximize collateral damage. It's the whole point of terrorism. "
Wrong. that's not what he said.
He said that in Iraq, we had tried to minimize CD, because it was a "normal war." He contrasted that to the instant case in which the terrorists deliberately attacked defenseless civilian population centers. Then he called them "Bastards," and then he hinted that the same Marquis de Queensbury rules were ergo no longer in effect.
75. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:26:11 AM
Indy,
Yes, but the fact remains that in the Mideast they probably can't believe the U.S. would use nukes any more than I can.
My guess is that even if the U.S. were itself the victim of a nuclear weapon, such as the horrible case scenario of a suitcase bomb, the government would hesitate with a direct nuclear attack on several mideastern states, again, not wanting to reintroduce nukes as a regular weapon of war.
76. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:28:12 AM
Indy
Nukes are nowhere near the table. They are not even in the building.
77. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:28:51 AM
"I understand your enthusiasm for the nuclear option, but it is not going to happen"
Okay, that's your speculation.
My speculation is that it is being hotly debated right now. My speculation is that Bush is being told that conventional bombing will just result in more Asprin factories and downed telephone polls. My speculation is that he is being told that a full-fledged invasion of a landlocked nation, with no air bases, ground bases, or ground or water routes to supply/insert the troops is fucking ludicrous. And my speculation is that he keeps wondering, "Okay, now why can't do the one thing that would actually be effective?"
78. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:29:04 AM
Ace,
Whatever. It's not going to happen. Schwarzkopf wouldn't advise using nukes in an unconventional situation either, and neither will his successors. Bush won't do it.
79. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:30:28 AM
And FU is thinking like Clinton. "How can we punish the terrorists specifically, directly responsible for this ONE incident?"
That paradigm has changed. Bush says that there will be "no distinction" between terrorist and haven-state. I believe him.
80. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:31:49 AM
ronski: Most of the time in the Middle East there are also oil fields to consider, and (always) that we would be using nukes against "nonwhites" again, which would reinforce the notion that we're racist.
Afghanistan has no oil fields.
The fact remains that in the Mideast they probably can't believe the U.S. would use nukes any more than I can.
This is actually an argument for not taking them off the table. States that sponsor terrorism need to be disabused of this opinion.
Perhaps apocryphal, but I remember reading an account that during the Iran hostage situation some Soviet embassy personnel were also threatened (because of Afghanistan?). Someone in the Kremlin notified the Iraqis something to the effect "In 20 minutes, there could be no Baghdad," and that was that.
I think it's a wrong signal for any of our first reactions to this attack to be laying out things we won't do.
81. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 11:32:57 AM
Is Afghanistan the aspirin producing capital of the East?
82. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:33:04 AM
I believe Bush too about there being no difference, but he will be told that making nuclear weapons a routine use of war is still unthinkable, or if at least thinkable, undoable, because of greater consequences.
83. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:34:18 AM
BTW, ronski and FU, whereas PE claims to be the biggest communism hater at the Mote (which I strongly dispute), I doubt few are more loathe to use nuclear weapons than I. In the NMD discussion I mentioned that I would use them only ir our national survival is/was at stake.
84. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:34:36 AM
Ace
My counter-speculation is that if Bush made the decision to use nuclear weapons, he would risk the resignations of his entire National Security team and his secretaries of State and Defense. I also speculate that were Bush to air interest in the option, his father would smack him in the mouth.
That said, what I speculate is being hotly debated is a military action on a large scale that presumes American casualties, though nowehere near the thousands we have suffered already.
And if you plan a military action with the expectation of casualties (as opposed to the puss bag Yugoslav campaign, where we wet our pants because three jokers were captured for three days), your options increase dramatically.
85. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:34:45 AM
ir = if
86. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:35:37 AM
Lawrence Eagleberger said last night that he, speaking only for himself, would, if it were found that Osama was responsible and Afganistan were hiding him, he'd take out their largest city.
87. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:35:43 AM
Greater consequences?
Such as what?
Such as two of our cities being bombed, Ronski?
Consequences just went out the window. They played their hole card; they got nothing left to threaten us with.
1) Seize the oil fields of Iraq and Yemen
2) Nuke Iraq and Iran's weapons, labs, and nuclear power plants
3) Then go to work on Afghanistan.
88. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:35:46 AM
Lawrence Eagleberger said last night that he, speaking only for himself, would, if it were found that Osama was responsible and Afganistan were hiding him, he'd take out their largest city.
89. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:35:49 AM
Check that: Afghanistan has no significant oil fields that I'm aware of.
90. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:36:25 AM
Nuclear weapons! In what dimension do you people live? Incineration of a continent! Kids. That's what is posting here, just kids.
91. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:36:39 AM
I agree with the leader of my party and of Her Majesty's government, as I always do.
92. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:37:25 AM
Ace
You are wrong. Clinton would not commit ground troops under any circumstances. Moreover, the retribution will be of all who were involved, may have been involved, are near those involved, and who harbor and or assisted those involved. To each subset, an option can be assigned (from cruise missiles/air strikes in and on Kabul [or Yemen or the Sudan or Bagdhad, or all] to air, missile and combat troop attacks on havens for Bin Laden and his associates).
93. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:37:42 AM
No, they don't. It's not worth the blood and treasure required to invade.
It is worth, however, eighteen or twenty surplus tactical nukes.
94. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:38:12 AM
Good God who cares about oil?
If its Iraq, Iran, UAE - massive retaliation full stop.
95. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:39:53 AM
My priest told me this am that the Chief, Depty Chief, & Chaplain of NYFD were killed along with the other 350 or so firefighters.
To me one of the more tragic stories among tens of thousands.
96. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 11:40:43 AM
Message # 83
Indiana Jones, you may dispute it all you like, but others' communism hatred is mostly theoretical. I have seen the work of communists firsthand.
By the way, I seriously doubt the Kremlin threatened to nuke Iraq since Iraq was a Soviet ally in 1980.
You may doubt the
97. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:40:59 AM
Greater consequences such as the entire fucking world turning against us. And you know that I don't particularly care what a bunch of Euro-leftists think of us for the most part. But incinerating a large part of the Middle East and then trying to run it for a while is simply not on the table. Bush 41's New World Order is based on cooperation, not unilateralism. Bush 43 will follow in his father's footsteps here. The signs are clear. All the gov types are talking about working with our allies.
98. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:41:26 AM
FU,
Riiiight. We're going to have a conventional bombing campaign and invasion of six or seven countries simultaneously.
It's not doable.
Nukes are the only way. We can't wage a ground war, because then OPEC turns off the oil, and this nation begins a 45 day countdown until we run out of oil. And that means our Armed Forces stop in their tracks.
FU, please explain how we will mount these massive campaigns with no fuel for our tanks, ships, and planes.
99. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:41:47 AM
FBI has executed search warrant on flying school in Venice, FL.
100. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:42:39 AM
jexster: The oil is of secondary importance to retribution at this point, but don't kid yourself re "who cares about the oil?"
Without oil it would be Hutus and Tutsis and who gives a damn.
101. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:43:01 AM
Ah, NBC is reporting that FBI agents have taken away eight to ten boxes of documents from the Venice Flying School, where two Arab men are said to have been trained. They apparently said that they were cousins, giving a home address in Hamburg, Germany.
102. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:43:45 AM
"Greater consequences such as the entire fucking world turning against us. "
Oh... those "friends" who would turn against as the moment we're attacked and involved in a war.
Shit, I don't wanna lose FRANCE!!!
103. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:43:52 AM
pseudo: Iran, not Iraq. It may have been apocryphal, as I said, and it was not an "official" threat in any event.
104. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:44:03 AM
Is there anyone in the administration who is arguing for nuclear weapons? Can anyone think of anyone who might be?
105. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:45:43 AM
Russia still hates Afghanistan.
Apart from the radiation -- and shit, don't they let out enough radiation themselves -- I don't know that Russia would be too terribly broken up if we nuked Afghanistan's fifteen largest "cities."
106. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:45:57 AM
I don't give a shit about France either. I know how to cook and don't need them. But Bush is not going to do this alone. We're talking about frigging nuking a country here, not signing some silly ass global warming treaty.
107. Rama - 9/12/2001 11:46:43 AM
And there is no such thing as "NMD money".
108. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:46:45 AM
"Can anyone think of anyone who might be?"
Rumsfield.
And as to Fey Francis' point:
If Colin Powell quits, I'd consider that a win-win situation.
109. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:47:09 AM
ronski: What has been done to us is more serious than a treaty as well.
110. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:48:13 AM
Indy,
Granted.
111. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:49:24 AM
Nuclear weapons on WHO? Osama Bin Laden? Shit, we can't even find the guy, we can't even penetrate into any of the workings of the Afghan leadership pro or anti-Taliban let alone get close with a guy who is seen as the guru of terrorism against the Great Satan; the US cannot now identify the country of origin of the terrorists let alone prove which country provided assistance and of what form if indeed a "country" was involved; no organization has stepped up to credibly prove they were responsible. And idiots talk of nukes?! Nuke what?
112. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:50:08 AM
WRT - The Retaliatory Future, worth noting from an LAT article....
European Union External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten called the assault "an act of war by madmen" and said it was the worst attack on the United States since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. "This is one of those few days in life that one can actually say will change everything," he predicted.
George Robertson, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said in Brussels that the attacks "constitute intolerable aggression against democracy and underline the need for the international community and the members of the alliance to unite their forces in fighting the scourge of terrorism."
113. judithathome - 9/12/2001 11:50:47 AM
They played their hole card; they got nothing left to threaten us with.
You don't know that; this time 2 days ago, you wouldn't have guessed they had that "hole card".
114. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:51:06 AM
This is ridiculous. There is now no US response against a target because there is not yet a target despite the rants in this thread.
115. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:51:34 AM
"We're talking about frigging nuking a country here"
Last time a country attacked us out-of-the-blue, we nuked them. Twice.
Pearl Harbor death toll-- 2,680 Military personnel
WTC/Pentagon death toll-- most likely 15000+ civilian personnel
Does that put it in perspective at all?
This attack caused more deaths than:
the revolutionary war
the war of 1812
the three or four bloodiest battles of the civil war
Korea cost us only 33,000 lives. Yesterday -- one fucking day -- cost us 15,000.
Nukes are off the table?
Oh no they're fucking not. They were considered in Korea.
116. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:51:46 AM
Scott - If Larry Eagleberger's voice is being heard in Bush's counsels, nuke Kabul.
117. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:51:56 AM
The two men trained at the Venice Flying School attended from July 2000 through January of this year, training on multi-engine planes, but not jets. The FBI also raided an apartment belonging to one of the men, who apparently surfaced on a passenger manifest, on the east coast of FL near Hollywood.
118. judithathome - 9/12/2001 11:52:54 AM
We knew who the enemy was at Pearl Harbor.
119. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:53:52 AM
"And idiots talk of nukes?! Nuke what?"
Asshole. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUKING AFGHANISTAN, NOT BIN LADEN. Which is obvious, if you fucking read, MORON. Aren't you the fucking idiot who once contended it was "impossible" that a sniper could kill a terrorist?
Bin Laden is NOT the issue. It is broader than that. If we think "Bin Laden," we lose. The enemy are those seven Arab states which finance terrorism. Bin Laden is just one of their employees.
120. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:54:13 AM
Yea 2000 or so military casualties at PH...
Yesterday was, in truth, one of those days that will change everything....all notions of the use of force and proportionality of response lie in the WTC rubble.
121. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:54:23 AM
Jexster, I don't believe Lawrence Eagleberger said he would "take out Afghanistan's largest city" and if he did he's a damned idiot to accuse Aghanistan of complicity without proof. Just another fat man bureaucrat with a big mouth allowed an opinion on public television.
122. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:56:11 AM
Ace
Your reliance on nuclear weapons because we are otherwise incapable is as ridiculous as your assertion that when we strike, we will strike (I presume, with nuclear weapons, as we appear to have as much as oil as Robert Shaw in The Battle of the Bulge) six or seven nations with those nuclear weapons.
I will admit that I have not offered my comments with an eye toward attacks on six or seven nations. But the idea of a modern Holy Crusades is attractive.
You seem to be suggesting a war on all terrorists, indiscriminate and massive, at a time when we are so weak that we have only 45 days of oil. Will this include the IRA and Basques?
How long do you imagine it would take us to seize what oil we neededin the evnt of an OPEC shutdown?
If you proffer any more than 72 hours, you'd be wrong.
123. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:56:21 AM
Scott Imbecile:
We already know Afghanistan is complicit. They have harbored and protected bin Laden FOR EIGHT FUCKING YEARS.
It doesn't matter if bin Laden is behind this attack (although he is).
124. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 11:56:38 AM
"The nukes on Japan had a strategic value, and most people understand that today. The Dresden fire bombing had none"
The Russians were engaged in an offensive, and the Germans were using Dresden as a rail hub for shipping troops and supplies in defense. As I recall, they asked the other allies to bomb Dresden for that reason. You can question the scope of the attack (although such things require us to ignore the context of WWII), but I think it was a valid military target.
125. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:56:45 AM
Yes he did, twice in fact, on Nightline and yes he is fat.
126. Andonly - 9/12/2001 11:56:57 AM
I hear there were Arabs dancing in the streets in...Parsippany, NJ. This supposedly sparked a riot. Can't locate any hard news about it.
127. christipeters - 9/12/2001 11:57:09 AM
A couple of the reports from here - http://monitor.airsecurity.com/ :
5:11a UNCONFIRMED: Taliban offer to consider extradition of Osama bin-Laden
10:10a Intercepted calls between bin-Laden backed persons discussed hitting two U.S. targets.
10:25a Unconfirmed. U.S. airspace will not reopen at noon eastern as previously announced.
10:29a At least one Middle Eastern student missing from Embry-Riddle University (a flight school) in Daytona Beach, Fla
10:50a No word as yet on when US airports will reopen.
(times are Central Time Zone)
128. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:57:24 AM
AceOfSpade, nuke Afghanistan?! And the seven Arab state that sponsor terrorism? Thank God you are relegated to being a law school student posting in an obscure forum. But, you've always been quick to prove your masculinity; just stick to talkin' dirty with your girlfriend, okay?
129. JRoth - 9/12/2001 11:58:29 AM
As a matter of routine the NSC scenarios will include nuclear options. That won't happen unless the situation becomes much clearer and the responsibility better resolved.
Obviously we can demand that the Taliban deliver OBL and then use their refusal as causus belli.
While speaking of the failure of the intelligence services (and it was), don't forget the emasculation by the Clintonites in '95. Without onerous reporting requirements we can't use as sources anybody who has 'blood on their hands'. However, domestic cops do it all the time....
130. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:58:33 AM
Considered in Korea and not used, and never considered again. Mind you, I think there is a difference between using small tactical nuclear weapons on a terrorist base camp and nuking a capital, but I doubt even the former is going to be done.
Of course, I have been wrong once or twice in my life, if I remember correctly.
131. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:58:35 AM
By the way, everyone, for a decent and timely political/nuclear thriller, rent Rod Lurie's "Deterrence" tonight.
132. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:58:40 AM
"It doesn't matter if bin Laden is behind this attack "
Ludicrous, vicious, ridiculous, imbecilic, and par for the course.
133. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:58:55 AM
Eagleburger really shot off his mouth in the interview I saw on ABC. He certainly spoke without much rein on his emotions.
134. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:03:12 PM
That would be interesting about Parsippany, if true. And very dangerous.
There have been no reports of Arabs dancing in Brooklyn, where there are many Arabs. And many Jews.
135. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:03:42 PM
Um, are the peace-fairies here saying that as long as we get one man --bin Laden -- Afghanistan's people and government are off the hook for harboring him for eight years and providing him the necessary refuge for planning, recruiting, and training men for the attack?
So Kabul *shouldn't* be bombed? Why the fuck not, precisely?
PS, many of you will now speak of "blowing Kabul into the Stone Age" or whatnot. 1), it's in the stone age already, 2), conventional weapons aren't up to such a task, and 3), if your intention is to obliterate the city and its population, why fuck around with thirty flights of B-52's when one nuke accomplishes the same goal?
136. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:03:45 PM
Eagleburger was wrong, is wrong, and should be publicly chastized for his irresponsible comments as a retired State Department official.
137. jexster - 9/12/2001 12:04:03 PM
Good to see ya back JR!
Its it just me or is it times of war that bring you round these parts?
138. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:04:54 PM
You're a real comfort, Ace of Spades. I can simply imagine every American who died yesterday was just like you, and feel no regret at all.
139. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:05:09 PM
I mean, if both accomplish the same goal -- and the same number of people are killed -- why should nukes be ruled out?
140. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:06:10 PM
"I can simply imagine every American who died yesterday was just like you, and feel no regret at all."
Eh. Go drink some more firewater and scalp yourself, "Squaw."
141. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:06:13 PM
Terrorists could kill a million asshole Americans like Ace and it would be a blessing.
142. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:06:46 PM
Dear Ace;
No, I don't suggest or intend that Afghanistan and the people within its borders be blown up by nuclear or conventional weapons because the ruling government and perhaps the sympathies of many lay with Osama bin Laden. I don't suggest or intend that of any country. I will hold the terrorist organization and its sponsor(s)personally responsible, but not their kith and kin. Got it?
143. Macnas - 9/12/2001 12:06:49 PM
The utter destruction of Dresden was intentional, Harris made sure that it was an fire bomb attack. It became so hot that air exploded, and concrete caught fire.
I dont quite get it, what happened to all the assistance that the taliban got from the US during the war with the USSR?? the ungrateful wretches, you should annihilate them from the face of the earth with nukes, even small clever little nukes as ace has expounded will do.
That'll learn 'em eh??
144. jexster - 9/12/2001 12:06:54 PM
"peace-fairies" ..."dune coons"..."sand niggers"
Oh my!
145. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:07:37 PM
Hic. Is my Interior Department welfare check here yet? Hic. I had to get a sheister lawyer to "prove" I'm a fullblooded Cherokee to earn that welfare check. Hic. And I wants my check. And my firewater.
146. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:07:54 PM
Ace, are the friends you are waiting to find squashed just like you? That's so sad.
147. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:08:48 PM
Some of you people want to put an army in the field, forces in the air and ships to sea to fight - what? What you think is The Enemy. Shit! You don't even know the name of that enemy.
148. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:08:52 PM
One reason that nukes should be ruled out is that in next door Pakistan, the nuclear programme is headed by ethnic Pashtun military officers. Even without the official encouragement of the Pak government, they will certainly try to put nuclear technolgy in the hands of terrorists in retaliation.
I think the analyses of the viability of conventional strikes against Afghanistan is vastly underrated. The Soviet Union managed to control cities in Afghanistan. If the USA were committed to overthrowing the Taliban, it could be done. The Taliban would be driven from the cities, and the opposition Northern Alliance could be supplied and equipped to eradicate the Taliban.
149. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:09:37 PM
...the viability...is vastly underrated.
150. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:10:01 PM
Concrete doesn't catch fire; like limestone it melts as witness the old church in Dresden which blackened ruin still stands.
151. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:10:09 PM
I think the sea change in American thinking will be that we are willing to commit troops who might actually die, as opposed to our current wailing if they have a hangnail.
152. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:10:30 PM
If Afghanistan is responsible, that is.
But that way, the USA could the Afghan people of a scourge, while simultaneously taking revenge.
153. greystoke - 9/12/2001 12:12:39 PM
From the LA Times:
Making the rounds of the morning television programs, Powell reinforced Bush's Tuesday night pledge that the attacks would be avenged. Administration officials say their early investigation has pointed to suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden, but the secretary of state made it sound like no military response was imminent.
He said the administration was "far from selecting any particular targets for retaliation
"We have to build a case first," he said.
-----------------------------------------------
I predict that there will be lots of big talk, but no action. "Build a case" my ass. I agree with whoever said here that the first order of business is to topple the Taliban and fly the US flag over Kabul just for humiliation purposes.
How long do you suppose that would take? 48 hours?
154. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:12:46 PM
Scott,
In less than a day, investigators have gone a long way in establishing who did this--the specific who. So what makes you think there's any rush?
155. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:13:05 PM
Message # 152
...could help rid the Afghan people of a scourge...
156. Macnas - 9/12/2001 12:14:43 PM
hmmm, 48 hours, wonder if the russians thought the same thing...
157. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:14:44 PM
Assuming bin Laden is responsible, I am skeptical that the US can do what needs to be done without ground forces - which means we are talking about a paratrooper assault with air cover, flown over a thousand miles of hostile territory, or we need an ally who borders Afghanistan, which would almost certainly have to be Pakistan.
There is the option of nukes, but despite Ace's channelling of Curtis Lemay, I don't think that will be considered a serious option.
158. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:14:53 PM
Grey,
If Bush & co is all talk and no action, he'll replace Carter at the head of the list of pussy presidents. The Republicans won't let that happen.
I really think the time for "show of force" response is over.
159. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:15:15 PM
CalGal, haven't you read the posts in this thread? I don't fault the pace or measure of the US government; it's the kindergarten here that is throwing spitballs about and playing grab-ass and talkin' like they suppose how adults must sound.
160. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:15:20 PM
greystoke
The response will hopefully be of such a magnitude that babies will be incinerated, an unfortunate by-product of the coming retribution.
As such, temper your lust so that, at a minimum, the incinerated babies are at least kin to the terrorists, those who harbored and/or aided them.
161. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:15:51 PM
Taking the Taliban out might be a very good idea. Using nukes to do it would not be. It will almost certainly lead to what PE is saying, a concerted effort to detonate nuclear weapons on U.S. soil. That conceivably could happpen anyway, but it is far less likely if we restrain upping the ante.
162. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:15:53 PM
PE's points about the Taliban are true. As I said about Bin Laden, even if the Taliban isn't behind this, now is the time to settle up with them as well.
It's not as though the Afghanistan "experiment" is one we want to see flourish and propagate.
163. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:17:31 PM
Indy,
Neither do the Russians.
164. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:19:50 PM
ronski: The idea of the Russians doing our dirty work is appealing, but one must take righteous revenge oneself. (Am not assuming you meant we could enlist the Russians, just making a comment.)
165. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:20:36 PM
Scott,
Yes, but apart from Ace's "burn the sandjockeys" and Indy's "let's not rule out nukes", I don't see anything terribly intemperate. Does it have to happen tomorrow? No. But I do think it should happen soon.
BTW, I don't know if you saw my post in the other thread, but you were dead on about the method of taking over the plane. Nice call.
166. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:22:07 PM
It was more a comment. I meant that they will not have a problem with our going there and doing something.
167. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:22:24 PM
Message # 161: It's not just that there would be a general desire for a nuclear retaliation in Muslim countries. It's more direct than that. Afghanistan is an ethnically Pashtun country. The nuclear programme in Pakistan is headed and staffed by many members of Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun minority. It is inconceivable that there would not be an attempt from this quarter to at least nuclear technology in the hands of terrorists
168. wonkers2 - 9/12/2001 12:22:47 PM
Unseating the Taliban is one thing. But nuking or otherwise killing masses of innocent Afghan civilians as was done to us would reduce us to the perpetrator's barbaric level without solving the problem. Part of the answer lies in enlisting the cooperation of the entire civilized world in dealing with terrorism. Putin and numerous other heads of state have endorsed this idea and offered their cooperation.
169. greystoke - 9/12/2001 12:23:07 PM
Cal
"I really think the time for "show of force" response is over."
I'm not sure I understand.
Francis
"As such, temper your lust so that, at a minimum, the incinerated babies are at least kin to the terrorists, those who harbored and/or aided them."
Well, I'm not advocating nuclear weapons. Nor do I want to see a bunch of Afghan civilians killed, though it would probably happen under just about any scenario.
I am suggesting conventional bombing and missling of the capital followed by a paratrooper assualt.
170. judithathome - 9/12/2001 12:23:25 PM
I don't see anything terribly intemperate
Maybe you missed a few posts...
171. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:23:33 PM
"I think the analyses of the viability of conventional strikes against Afghanistan is vastly underrated. The Soviet Union managed to control cities in Afghanistan. If the USA were committed to overthrowing the Taliban, it could be done. The Taliban would be driven from the cities, and the opposition Northern Alliance could be supplied and equipped to eradicate the Taliban."
That is what I was getting at last night, but you said they weren't a viable opposition.
It is clear that the USSR was able to occupy Afghanistan. They just couldn't pacify it. As long as our goals are more limited, we can potentially avoid repeating their fate. However, I don't know how we can conceivably do large scale military action without secure supply lines through Pakistan. How likely is that?
172. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:24:04 PM
PE,
Yes, I understand, and you make a very valuable point. I hope there are people in our administration who understand the region as well as you do.
173. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:24:59 PM
There is nothing intemperate about refusing to rule out nukes the day after Pearl Harbor II. Would you prefer our President go on TV and start saying, "We'll we're going to punish these guys. But like Superman, we're going to pull our punches, just so no one is actually killed. We're going to see if we can extradite them. You know, we got Ira Einhorn. It took us awhile, but he's coming here to face trial.
"And the people who bombed the World Trade Center the first time. Got them too. And the Lockerbie terrorists. All those folks, they're sitting in jail cells, you know. That'll teach them.
"But seriously, we're hopping mad this time. We've got a double-plus top-secret plan. No nukes, however."
Barely 24 hours after this vicious assault, as President or whoever, if I've only got one specific thing to say, it's not going to be about what we're not going to do.
174. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:26:28 PM
It is false that Afghanistan is unconquerable. It is not holdable. There is a big difference. In the first Anglo-Afghan War, the British took all the major cities in Afghanistan and held them for a year. They just couldn't hold the country indefinitely. The same with the Soviets. They came in, took the cities, and never lost control of them. The Soviet war took place entirely in the countryside.
175. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:26:45 PM
I generally concur with your suggestion, though I think it best to keep troops out of an urban environment. To the extent Bin Laden seeks haven in Kabul, we just bomb and bomb and bomb and bomb until he is handed over.
To the extent Bin Laden and his associates take to the road, we should use ground forces.
I disagreed with your need for speed.
176. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:27:13 PM
The chief value of nukes is as deterrence against the other side's use of weapons of mass destruction. A real worry is that if we go in with nukes, that deterrence won't exist in the future. Holders of weapons of mass destruction will face a choice of "use them or get nuked anyway".
177. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:28:53 PM
Judith,
Excellent example of a dishonest quote. The only kind you can manage.
Grey,
"Show of force" as opposed to "actual force". I really think a response that doens't include civilians dying--as regrettable as it is--is inadequate. That doesn't mean I think they should all die, or we should be indiscriminate.
178. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:29:14 PM
wonkers
There is no solving the problem, as the problem is the existence of soulless barbarians bent on terrorist acts against American civilians. Hostilities are not a prelude to diplomacy.
As such, we can only alleviate the problem. International commissions and yakety-yaks won't do this.
179. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:29:49 PM
Before I forget, sakonige is an idiotic, mildly insane bitch (assuming she's actually female), who doesn't understand the difference between being an oh-so-cute needling agent provocateur on a posting board and real life.
Perhaps sometime she will be face to face to someone who explains it to her. Carefully.
180. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:30:40 PM
The first think Bin Laden and the Taliban will do is rely on Western skittishness with regard to civilian casualties and surround themselves with a protective bubble of bouncing babies.
181. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:30:43 PM
Message # 171
Well, the Northern Alliance is not viable on its own. But if US troops removed the Taliban and ejected them from the cities, and also equipped the Northern Alliance, then the NA could take on the Taliban more effectively.
But I am certain there is no will to do the job properly, and the end result will only be putting the Northern Alliance in power in Kabul but not elsewhere in the country.
Pakistan will never ever grant space for an attack on Afghanistan.
182. judithathome - 9/12/2001 12:30:53 PM
Oh please....grow the hell up. I'll leave the floor to you so you can continue to shine.
183. judithathome - 9/12/2001 12:31:32 PM
182 is to Cal.
184. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:35:01 PM
The first think Bin Laden and the Taliban will do is rely on Western skittishness with regard to civilian casualties and surround themselves with a protective bubble of bouncing babies.
Which is why this has to cease to be a factor--in fact, quite the opposite, if the US manages to kill bin Laden without harming anyone else, they've set the bar too high. People other than the terrorists themselves will have to die or we're still using the same priorities. Part of the point of a response is to demonstrate that our attitude about this has changed.
185. Wombat - 9/12/2001 12:36:13 PM
MacNas is confused. Taliban did not exist during the Russo-Afghan War. The US did channel funds and equipment to Islamic radicals under the belief that they would fight harder than more secular or ethnic-based groups. In this the US and Bin Laden had at very least, congruent goals, if not a formal relationship. In this, the US was shortsighted.
Over the last 150 years Britain and the Soviet Union "raised their flags" over Kabul, to no lasting effect.
There are a number of countries in the region that should face a choice: spill all that is known about the operations of Bin Laden and his followers, roll up whatever networks exist in their countries, and turn those arrested over to the US. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan. Failure to do so will result in an end to the friendly relationships that currently exist, with financial and miltary consequences.
Countries that are seeking better relationships with the US must prove themselves by doing the same. If Afghanistan was truly not involved, they must prove it by turning Bin Laden over to the US. If not, the US will launch covert operations to overthrow them, assisted by US military forces as appropriate.
Countries that are declared enemies of the US, such as Iraq, had best demonstrate to our satisfaction that they were not involved, or face all-out war as a consequence.
186. mgleason - 9/12/2001 12:36:26 PM
The world is coming to an end: Fidel is offering humanitarian aid.
187. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:37:39 PM
Wow. That's amazing. I saw last night that he offered condolences.
188. greystoke - 9/12/2001 12:37:42 PM
CalGal
OK, now I get it.
My position is slightly different. I don't see civilian casualties as a goal, or even a positive outcome from a deterrence point of view, but rather as an unavoidable byproduct of toppling a government.
189. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:38:57 PM
I missed Macnas's post on the Taliban but Wombat is correct. The Taliban didn't even exist until 1994. The Soviet war ended in 1989.
190. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:39:45 PM
Pseudo: Then this becomes a daunting challenge of military logistics. How can the US conceivably even reach the Soviet level of occupation without an ally on the border or the possibility of an amphibious landing? I know next to nothing about the Soviet breakaways on the northern border, but what little I do know makes me skeptical they would support us either.
If so, we either have to do the entire thing through air support, routinely violating the airspace of a country that might eventually start shooting at our planes, or we have to invade a country or two to get to Afghanistan.
Not pretty.
191. HollyW - 9/12/2001 12:40:52 PM
I'm a little wigged out right now. Scores of people from communities all around me died on those planes.
I'm usually pretty good at not taking pain in that isn't directly mine--how else can you be a nurse and not flip out--but right now, I'm unraveling...just a bit.
I can't imagine I'm not the only one who feels that way. I went to work yesterday, but have not yet been out and about in the world. I'm wondering about the backlash the Arab community will be getting around here...everywhere, of course, but particularly in the Boston area, in light of what they suspect about the plot.
192. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:41:00 PM
Grey,
I think they are an unavoidable byproduct as well, but I don't think we always have to topple a government in order to get the point across. Maybe it is necessary in this case, I don't know. I'm more interested in it as a policy issue, and in that instance I think civilian casualties are a positive outcome--but again, not indiscriminately so.
193. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:41:20 PM
I wonder what century some of you inhabit.
Prescription for Fighting State-sponsored Terrorism
1) When conclusively identified, attack and destroy the state's leadership and party organization such as was tried by the US in Libya;
2) destroy the active agents wherever found (as in Paris).
Do not declare war against a country; it is the leadership, government and party apparatus which is to be destroyed not the populace, and so holding and occupying land is not the purpose.
194. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:42:40 PM
Holly,
Andonly mentioned in another thread that there were reports of Arabs openly celebrating in New Jersey. I really hope that isn't true, because that will make things more difficult.
195. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:44:24 PM
Do not declare war against a country; it is the leadership, government and party apparatus which is to be destroyed not the populace, and so holding and occupying land is not the purpose.
So you should never declare war against a country unless you want to occupy it?
196. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:44:40 PM
Scott: I don't think the US could, or would, settle for anything less than bin Laden's head on a plate. We can certainly attack governments, but I doubt we can effectively kill or capture terrorists solely from the air.
197. mgleason - 9/12/2001 12:45:39 PM
Holly,
I don't know anyone who was on one of the hijacked flights, but I'm still waiting for news of friends who worked at the WTC and others who participated in the rescue. It hasn't quite sunk in yet.
198. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:46:20 PM
Holly: There have already been stories of anti-arab death threats and beatings, and I recently heard about a molotov cocktail attack in Chicago.
199. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:47:31 PM
But our likely policy is beginning to sound a lot like Harrison Ford's in Air Force One, which I remember thinking was eye-rollingly naive at the time.
200. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:49:21 PM
Raskolnikov;
I maintain that we needn't occupy a country to project our power nor is it desirable as doing gains nothing but exposing occupying troops to attack. My prescription (you read it?) had two aims: eradicating the state (not the country) that sponsored terrorism and that is done by killing them, and the second was killing the active agents - the terrorists - whenever found by whatever means. I doubt the 82nd Airborne as part of an occupying force could find and kill terrorists in, say, Syria. Those boys would be long gone by then to another country; look at the peregrinations of The Jackal.
201. concerned - 9/12/2001 12:49:28 PM
I posted this elsewhere, but thought it was worth copying here:
This actually happened: A Lefty has already tried to use the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attack as an argument against NMD in another forum. His 'reasoning'? Since this deadly attack didn't use a nuclear tipped ICBM, it was a guarantee that no missile attack would ever occur.
Crazy? Yes. Lefty 'thinking'? But, of course.
202. Oceans11 - 9/12/2001 12:49:45 PM
>There have already been stories of anti-arab death threats and
beatings, and I recently heard about a molotov cocktail attack in
Chicago.
Unsurprising, given Orrin Hatch's comments on ABC News last evening where he said "the goal of Muslims is to kill Americans."
203. concerned - 9/12/2001 12:52:26 PM
Re. 153 -
Looks like Powell & Co. are waiting for the terrorists to get a few more whacks in before they decide whether they'll do anything about it.
Actually, though, I read that several terrorism attempts were aborted by the US in the months before the WTC/Pentagon attack.
204. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:52:48 PM
Rask,
I can't remember what the plot was of Air Force One--you mean the Pres' speech at the beginning?
205. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:53:52 PM
Holly,
I keep on worrying that it will turn out I knew someone. Oddly enough, one of the gigs I applied for two months ago would have had me working in the WTC. It was filled by someone local.
206. Andonly - 9/12/2001 12:55:43 PM
"One reason that nukes should be ruled out is that in next door Pakistan, the nuclear programme is headed by ethnic Pashtun military officers. Even without the official encouragement of the Pak government, they will certainly try to put nuclear technolgy in the hands of terrorists in retaliation."
Pakistan was my first thought as well; however, I didn't consider the details you offer concerning nukes in the hands of terrorists. But in fact Pakistan couldn't do anything overt without risking a swift Indian-US alliance that would result in Pakistan's obliteration one way or the other.
"I think the analyses of the viability of conventional strikes against Afghanistan is vastly underrated. The Soviet Union managed to control cities in Afghanistan."
The Soviet Union bordered Afghanistan. Russia doesn't. To mobilize ground troops into Afghanistan from the north & west, we'd need to occupy or obtain the cooperation of the Muslim states bordering Afgh. From the south and southeast, we'd need Pak cooperation. I do not think the latter is completely out of the question, but right now I can't articulate why.
"If the USA were committed to overthrowing the Taliban, it could be done. The Taliban would be driven from the cities, and the opposition Northern Alliance could be supplied and equipped to eradicate the Taliban."
Have they used up all those cruise missiles I'm curious about the source of? Surely we've been arming them all along.
Any military analyst types care to comment on this scenario: American and NATO aircraft are staged in Turkey, fly over the Caucuses and the Caspian, continue over Turkmenistan, enter Afghanistan from the northern border, and level Kabul?
207. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:56:08 PM
re Message # 195: Declaring war on, say, Libya or Syria, serves no purpose other than to serve notice the US wars on their people. That is not the desired intent. The US should state our specific targets are the leaders and party apparatus which abetts terrorism, not the nation and not the people. You can understand this distinction, yes?
208. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 12:57:01 PM
I'm sure it will turn out that many, many of us knows someone who died in the WTC. My husband knows two people.
209. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:58:11 PM
Let's nuke them all. 
210. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:59:18 PM
So the US levels Kabul, receives hearty condemnation from most of the world and most of our own people and gains what in return? A lasting legacy confirming it as the bully others claimed?
Again, attacks must be targeted on the leadership, state and party organizations only, and we must say so publicly (albeit after the fact).
211. Shannon - 9/12/2001 12:59:36 PM
I think you're right, Erin. I only have one good friend who lives in NY, and I know he's OK. But a number of people I knew in college live there, including, last I heard, one of my freshman roommates.
212. HollyW - 9/12/2001 1:00:33 PM
"Oddly enough"? I love how you put things, Cal!
213. sakonige - 9/12/2001 1:01:40 PM
What do you think, Jenerator? Should God Bless America stand tall and rid the world of these filthy sand niggers?
214. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:03:22 PM
Message # 206
But in fact Pakistan couldn't do anything overt without risking a swift Indian-US alliance that would result in Pakistan's obliteration one way or the other.
I wasn't talking about the Pak government doing anything overt or doing anything at all willingly. I was talking about Pak nuclear technology leaking to terrorists -- leaking from independent but sympathetic Pakistanis of ethnic Pashtun extraction.
India would have no reason to strike against Pakistan just because Pakistani nuclear technology leaked in retaliation against the USA.
Have they used up all those cruise missiles I'm curious about the source of?
What cruise missiles?
Surely we've been arming them all along.
If so, then it's not obvious. The Northern Alliance is holed up in a corner of the country under siege by the Taliban.
Any military analyst types care to comment on this scenario: American and NATO aircraft are staged in Turkey, fly over the Caucuses and the Caspian, continue over Turkmenistan, enter Afghanistan from the northern border, and level Kabul?
You would be violating the airspace of Armenia and Turkmenistan, which have signed treaty obligations with the Russian Federation ceding some sovereignty over their airspace for military purposes.
215. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:04:20 PM
Sakonige is crude, but she's right. And you advocating massive bombings are clueless. Just clueless.
216. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:04:53 PM
Loar makes a lot of sense. Hasn't the USA's reason for its foreign policy always been that it is morally superior to its enemies?
217. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:05:00 PM
If the US decides that the Taliban needs to be removed from Afghanistan, I wouldn't think that tactical nuclear arms should necessarily be ruled out, although some other decisive weapon hopefully is available to the Pentagon instead.
The last thing the US needs is to become immured in a guerrilla war with Afghani hillbillys. Whatever armaments would be used, the war would need to be prosecuted quickly and decisively to fully impress the more bloodthirsty among the Muslims.
So, if the Taliban is at least partially culpable, demand that their government step down within 48 hours and produce bin Laden in shackles or suffer the consequences.
An alternative approach that might have possibilities, surprisingly enough, would be a interdiction of access. Apparently, Osama bin Laden suffers from renal insufficiency and needs to undergo dialysis on a regular basis. Since he currently goes to Pakistan to have this done, if he can be prevented from doing so for long enough, that could possibly be a factor in causing him to cave, eventually.
218. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:08:25 PM
In 209 Sakonige proposes 'nuking them all' and Loar supports that?
Given content like that, I don't feel obligated to wade back through dozens of posts.
219. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 1:09:33 PM
"I can't remember what the plot was of Air Force One--you mean the Pres' speech at the beginning?"
Yeah, he basically announces a US policy of treating all who harbor terrorists of enemies, and pursuing terrorists wherever they may be. I remember thinking "right, the American people would just line up to support a war against Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, et al, for the purpose of saving the handful of lives lost to terrorism every year."
What happened yesterday drastically changes what the American people will be willing to support.
220. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:10:53 PM
It is not only moral superiority (and the fact that I believe Americans cannot sustain unprincipled barbarity in warfare) but that projection of power does not require an 19th century occupation (which needlessly exposes troops to attack)and that the US must differentiate between the state and the nation as a people. Let me make it real simple: Kill Kaddhafi, not Libyans; eradicate Saddam and his Bathist party not Iraq; expose and bomb the Taliban government in Afghanistan if found culpable; and in doing so understand that the chances of killing Osama bin Laden or extinguishing terrorist cells are small. Other means are needed, but the first step is eradicating the state that sponsors terrorism, which is not the same as warring against the country.
221. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:12:47 PM
Concerned, you are too lazy to understand it was not Loar who supports "nuking them all" as a glance at any one of my posts can prove even to the most indolent but that Sakonige's pictures with the sarcastic comment crudely but accurately caught the moral dilemma.
222. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:13:23 PM
If Afghanistan being landlocked is the problem, the solution is simple: drive in through Iraq. Don't they have a common border somewhere?
223. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:15:06 PM
I surely don't advocate taking on six, seven or eight countries at once. Just discover the active sponsor of this act against the US, trace the money and training, and if these terrorists received the blessing of a state then fire on its leaders.
224. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:15:18 PM
Re. 221 -
You're correct. But where did Sakonige make her worthwhile post?
225. mgleason - 9/12/2001 1:15:53 PM
A police SWAT team showed up at the Westin Hotel in Boston a little while ago. They're calling it a 'special weapons entry team.'
226. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:16:03 PM
Rustler forgot about Iran.
227. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 1:17:04 PM
"If Afghanistan being landlocked is the problem, the solution is simple: drive in through Iraq. Don't they have a common border somewhere?"
No. Border states are Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and a little slice of Uzbekistan.
Loar, I do agree with your statement in 220. I am just thinking about our needs to pursue the "other steps".
228. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:19:28 PM
Raskolinkov, I appreciate your agreement as I fear words are beginning to fail me as the thrust of these entries continues along the lines of bomb'em, enter with troops, then shoot'em. That scenario belongs to the 19th century.
229. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:20:48 PM
pe:
1) what do you prescribe as a good US reaction to the attack?
2) what do you speculate the Bushster will wind up doing?
230. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:21:50 PM
I think there is a problem with the US making outright attempts to kill heads of states.
Although Carter was generally a terrible president, his disavowal of US sponsored assassination was a good move. That's why the US should make some kinda sorta attempt to capture or have others capture individuals responsible for terrorist attacks alive.
231. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:22:34 PM
Can someone post a good, yet small, map of the relevant region (to this thread)? I'd like it to include the Persian Gulf.
232. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:23:52 PM
If the perps fail to survive the US attempts to apprehend them, oh, well. At least the US is acting from a morally superior plane, particularly compared to the scum the US is dealing with.
233. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:25:36 PM
Re. 228 -
Well, at least the 19th Century is far advanced over the 12th Century mindset that the average Middle Easterner is frozen into.
234. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 1:26:09 PM
Just got another job offer. Two job offers requiring significant domestic air travel.
235. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 1:28:08 PM
And circling back to some of the earlier posts: I was paying bills in the living room when my husband came in and turned on the television. I had been trying to call American Express all morning, but couldn't get through.
236. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:28:22 PM
This is my preliminary guess as to what Sharon will want to lure Bush into (assuming the Bush Admin will be listening to Israel here - not an unreasonable assumption):
1) do something that involves an indefinite stay of a lot of American troops on Mideastern Arab land. For instance, set up a base for your aircraft (from which to look for Bin Laden) somewhere in Iraq.
2) this will provoke Saddam into going to war.
3) get Saddam.
I asume the Saudis want Bin Laden dead as badly as anyone and I don't see why there should be an oil embargo.
Oh yeah, and
4) get Bin Laden too.
237. theDiva - 9/12/2001 1:29:12 PM
Pike 
238. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:30:07 PM
Some of the perps will doubtlessly survive, but they are secondary to what should be the US' primary intent: conclusively and legally identifying the state sponsors of this act of terrorism and target their persons and organizations. Kill them, and like "killing a chicken to warn the monkey" serves notice to all that harbouring the terrorists puts a state at similar risk. We cannot eradicate terrorism until their state support and bases are gone, and to do that we need if not active then the passive cooperation of all countries.
239. mgleason - 9/12/2001 1:31:28 PM
This doesn't include the Persian Gulf, sorry: 
240. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 1:32:11 PM
Loar is correct. The strikes must be at governmental facilities, defense installations, and political centers. But they must also be in the homes and neighborhoods of the Afghan ruling structure, much as the bombing in Tripoli targeted official buildings and areas where Qaddafi's family lived.
The attacks must also be unremitting and in conjunction with ground operations that inflict massive and maximum damage on the leadership.
And the goal should be clear and ambitious - cripple the leadership, with the first and most desirable action being death.
Indiscriminate loads dropped on Kabul is counterproductive.
241. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:32:37 PM
We are not going to get active or passive cooperation by indiscriminately bombing the citizenry of a state.
242. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:34:17 PM
What is wrong with you people? You've just witnessed the destruction of downtown Manhattan and you want to visit the same on Kabul? It doesn't work! Get the leaders, get the party, get the organization. You don't bomb the public!
243. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 1:34:53 PM
Of course, I am of the bomb them, invade them, and shoot them school, but I agree that the "them" should be more circumscibed than anyone with the confines of Kabul.
244. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 1:35:18 PM
I missed the Chinese border. Not that they are likely to help us much in this.
245. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:35:38 PM
Another approach would be in the lines of what Barak was saying on CNN, about going to war against terrorism the way 'our forefathers' fought piracy on the high seas (never mind that Barak's forefathers were at best the financiers who lent the British admirals money for staying solvent).
I don't like that approach. It underestimates the terrorists.
Still - that could also mean stuff like stationing a permanent presence in the Mideast and bombing Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., constantly: different targets every week.
That would also be nice. I guess.
246. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:35:42 PM
Francis, I yield to your humour.
247. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:36:33 PM
Even if the Chinese were willing to help, the Chinese-Afghan border is useless. It's filled with 23,000+ foot peaks.
248. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 1:36:44 PM
Scott
The leaders, the party, the organization will bubble wrap itself with the public. I presume that if intelligence identifies Taliban members in a specific location in a heavily populated area outside of Kabul, your policy would allow bombing of that area.
249. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:40:33 PM
How easy it will be to target tent dwelling terrorists, I'm not sure. But there's this. If the Taliban was responsible for this pure targeting of US citizens at the WTC, their primitive 'eye for an eye' philosophy would allow for the same behavior from the US. Indeed, their lack of perception would cause them to regard a too fastidious US response as a form of decadence and weakness, unless it was extremely successful in removing the Taliban.
250. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:41:13 PM
Francis, of course the leadership, the party, will try to wrap itself with the public. That's exactly why I do not target the public but the leadership wherever they may be. I do not want to inflict civilian casualties as punishment and would state so after the attack and constantly thereafter but warn all - the US will seek, find and destroy until your leaders and their odious apparatus (I love Churchill) are dead and no long a threat to our nations. I said, "our nations".
251. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:41:16 PM
"I wasn't talking about the Pak government doing anything overt or doing anything at all willingly. I was talking about Pak nuclear technology leaking... India would have no reason to strike against Pakistan just because Pakistani nuclear technology leaked in retaliation against the USA."
Oh--an 'unwilling' leakage. I see what you're saying. And yet, one wonders whether the Taliban, which must have known Afgh would be the US's first target in the event of even a suspected attack from OBL, quite willingly supported what transpired yesterday. It's one thing to harbour a fugitive; it's another to face retribution for his actions (or the actions of a group allied with him). Bearing in mind what is about to happen, are your Pashtuns so stupid as to accidentally 'lose' a nuke? We'd guess where it came from pretty quick. And then maybe we'd let India have the pleasure, if they could stand it.
"What cruise missiles?"
The ones that were reportedly fired at Kabul last night. But maybe they weren't cruise missiles? I have heard nothing more about what weaponry was used (or not used, or from what positions exactly) since the NA claimed responsibility.
"You would be violating the airspace of Armenia and Turkmenistan, which have signed treaty obligations with the Russian Federation ceding some sovereignty over their airspace for military purposes."
So? Why are you sure Russia won't simply waive any objection to our (or our allies) doing so?
252. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:41:47 PM
Incidentally, I too have contemplated carving a path through Iran; but this would entail fighting off Iraq at the same time, I suspect.
And, obviously, Loar's preference and yours for seizing and occupying Afgh cities, purging them of the Taliban, is the most morally correct action the US could take--I would prefer it myself, along with a NATO occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. But the most moral action is not necessarily the executable one.
I trust the US will do what it can, but not more, toward an objective of achieving revenge sufficient to deter any state from supporting or harbouring a terrorist. But no matter what we do, that deterrence will be short lived, or largely illusory. Which may be better than nothing.
253. CalGal - 9/12/2001 1:43:49 PM
Well, I am of the bomb and invade school, but I've already said it shouldn't be indiscriminate. I do think that sparing civilians should not be a consideration.
Rask--I mentioned that earlier as well; American tolerance for going to war just changed dramatically.
Scott--I am just trying to figure out if you are saying that wars should never be fought against the people themselves. In that scenario, do we refrain from bombing Hiroshima because after all, it was just the government? Or are you saying this is only applicable when a state is sponsoring terrorism, and if so, where is the line drawn?
254. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:45:49 PM
Leveling Kabul then trapsing troops across the wild surrounds of Afghanistan is executable?
255. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:46:04 PM
I sincerly hope that GWB doesn't try to turn any retaliation into Gulf War II. International troops or even support is not necessary; only partial regional support from critical surrounding countries would be really desirable.
The time wasted in attempts to court dozens of countries or hope for a UN vote as a measure of acceptance could backfire in a big way on GWB. Plus, the longer the US delays retaliation past the first few days, the less effective it is likely to be and the more chances for terrorist groups to strike demoralizing blows at the West during the interim.
256. Wombat - 9/12/2001 1:49:12 PM
The explosions in Kabul last night were attacks by supporters of Masoud, who was killed or injured by suicide bombers the day before. Does anyone know of his status?
257. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:49:48 PM
Scott Loar has used a lot of bandwidth inveighing against the 'indiscriminate bombing' school, yet I have not seen anybody post here since I logged in today who advocates that.
258. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:50:31 PM
Re. 256 -
I believe he is probably alive.
259. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:50:33 PM
CalGal, of course wars can be fought nation against nation, people against people as in WWII, but responding to terrorism is not such an instance. I have written on and on in the last few hours about terrorism and if you've you missed my point then fault me because I don't know how else to get the point across at this time. It is not just a moral dilemma, and it also a matter of practicability. A declaration of war against, say Afghanistan, gains us nothing but grief in the end and does nothing to diminish terrorism; indeed, it would only incite and increase its advocates. I've already given a prescription to fight state-sponsored terrorism, and I'm just about exhausted over this.
260. sakonige - 9/12/2001 1:50:43 PM
We all know bad things happen in war, and I'm not going to waste any more regret on future reprisals against the US than I did on this one. The loss of 20,000 average middle-class American assholes just isn't that much of a tragedy.
261. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:51:02 PM
Message # 251
I'm not sure you are understanding me, even though I've explained several times. I'm saying that if the USA nuked Afghanistan, individual symphathisers in Pakistan, acting independently of the government, would probably leak nuclear technology to terrorists.
...are your Pashtuns so stupid as to accidentally 'lose' a nuke?
I think so, if Afghanistan were nuked.
And then maybe we'd let India have the pleasure, if they could stand it.
Why would India do anything?
The ones that were reportedly fired at Kabul last night. But maybe they weren't cruise missiles? I have heard nothing more about what weaponry was used (or not used, or from what positions exactly) since the NA claimed responsibility.
They were not cruise missiles.
So? Why are you sure Russia won't simply waive any objection to our (or our allies) doing so?
Russia would never let the US fly over "their" air space -- even if it meant bombing Afghanistan.
262. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:51:13 PM
"Leveling Kabul then trapsing troops across the wild surrounds of Afghanistan is executable?"
You're confusing my argument with CalGal's. The scenario I proposed (the one not entailing carving a path through Iran) is simply a retaliatory strike of some suitable magnitude. I am not advocating for it; I am resigned to the possibility of it.
263. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:52:20 PM
Concerned, again, you don't read, or do read but without much comprehension.
264. Cygnus X-1 - 9/12/2001 1:53:58 PM
sakonige, 
Here's what they look like when they take off their rags.
All of your pretenses of sophistication and being above the fray don't mean shit to the dead. The game has changed. Our very way of life has been forever altered, and you just want to go take out one guy? For what, to make him a martyr to be replaced by countless others? You need to show these cockroaches and those that live with them what they're dealing with: A nuclear power. We can't fool around any more. It's time to put a stop to this. It worked once before and it will work again.
265. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:53:59 PM
I leave others to weigh your protest, Adonly, against your earlier comments.
266. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:56:17 PM
Re. 263 -
Loar -
Unless you identify who you are referring to, I'm afraid my point stands.
267. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:56:29 PM
concerned: Ace has eloquently propounded the nuking of Afghanistan.
268. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:56:52 PM
"individual symphathisers in Pakistan, acting independently of the government, would probably leak nuclear technology to terrorists."
Technology? But this doesn't mean much. Building and delivering a nuclear device is not so simple if you have no state infrastructure behind you. How would it be hidden by these, presumably stateless, terrorists? I mean, which states would be willing to risk nuclear US reprisal by allowing such terrorists to assemble, let alone deploy, such a device?
269. mgleason - 9/12/2001 1:57:35 PM
Woolsey's back on ABC talking about the Iraqis. No coincidence, I think. His remarks are more pointed than yesterday, calling it a mistake on the Clinton administration's part to have backed off from focusing on Iraq's state-sponsored terrorism.
He keeps harking back to the WTC bombing of 1993, and the possibility that Ramzi Yussef was an Iraqi agent.
270. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:58:07 PM
As of post 263, that is. I don't see where Cal Gal or FU are being entirely unreasonable, Loar.
271. CalGal - 9/12/2001 1:59:09 PM
You're confusing my argument with CalGal's.
???
I don't think so, based on your restatement--which isn't my argument, at any rate.
Scott:
Okay, I am unconcerned about niceties like declaring war; I seemed to have missed a distinction.
You are saying
1) don't declare war on them because war is not the proper response to terrorism
2) because we aren't declaring war we should focus exclusively on the government, not inflict it on the people of the country?
I understood your recommendation as to what we should do, it was the higher level distinctions I was missing--and may still be, if I haven't nailed it this time.
272. wonkers2 - 9/12/2001 2:03:01 PM
Even the Israelis when they retaliate try to avoid killing large numbers of civilians. They use a rifle rather than a blunderbuss. And many thoughtful people don't believe this somewhat restrained retaliation isn't getting them any closer to where they want to be. Curbing terrorism is going to be a long, rocky road. And it will require the cooperation of all civilized governments. The attack was an assault on world civilization, not just on the U.S.
273. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:03:04 PM
Re. 267 -
True.
274. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:03:37 PM
"Why would India do anything?"
From a purely emotional standpoint, to be done with Pakistan. But if your point is that there are about fifty mitigations against this sort of act, I would have to agree. It's just that I really don't know how much they'd care (until the fallout began falling on exactly half of Kashmir) if we did it.
275. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 2:03:39 PM
List of World Trade Center tenants
276. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:05:04 PM
Whoops--Andonly, it wasn't your restatement (about "traipsing", it was Scott's. It was you who attributed the position to me.
277. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:05:07 PM
"Russia would never let the US fly over "their" air space -- even if it meant bombing Afghanistan."
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
278. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 2:07:57 PM
Using dirty but small-yield nuclear weapons would teach the leaders of the countries involved a lesson that to harbor terrorists causes long-term problems.
279. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:08:41 PM
ABC reports that one suspect may have been taken into custody at the Westin in Boston, another either wounded or dead. These are apparently cab drivers.
280. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:14:57 PM
Re. 278 -
The WTC/Pentagon terrorist attack has settled one question in my mind in the affirmative:
Are there people with the ability and will to detonate nuclear devices on US soil as unprovoked terrorist acts?
I think the question devolves to the one similar to that which PE and Andonly dealt with, which is whether enough infrastructure exists for such individuals and groups to obtain them in the first place.
I believe the answer will soon be, if it isn't already, 'yes' to this also. I read that Osama bin Laden is anxious to get his hands on biological and nuclear weapons.
281. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 2:15:33 PM
Cal: Scott's point is just that our war aims are very different here than they were in World War II. Japan and Germany were expansionist threats with lots of internal support for their governments. Eliminating those threats required the surrender and temporary occupation of those countries, and pretty much a total war strategy.
In this situation, our goal is not the elimination of a threat by the Afghanistan military and people, but a threat that comes from terrorist groups that their government supports. Our war aims and strategies need to change accordingly, and there is no sense, and a lot of potential harm, in engaging in military acts similar to those we used against Germany and Japan.
282. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:16:51 PM
Now they say that two females and a male were taken into custody, and the hotel and block were evacuated due to a possible bomb.
283. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 2:18:11 PM
One thing I think President Bush ought to do is to urge everyone to return to business as usual, like Mayor Giuliani has done. It can only give satisfaction to the killers - and even encourage future terrorisam - to see Americans wringing our hands and cancelling public events, whether out of sorrow or (worse) out of fear. The President needs to say that returning to our normal routines is not disrespecting the victims but rather frustrating the aims of their killers.
284. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:20:26 PM
I wonder whether west coast cities are likely to be targeted next, or if this stuff is all aimed at the eastern seaboard.
285. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 2:21:09 PM
"Worst is still to come"
The United States is paying the price for its anti-Islamic policies but the "worst is still to come", the leader of a Pakistani religious group said Wednesday.
286. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:25:10 PM
Rask,
Thanks. I wouldn't argue that our aims and strategies need to be the same, and I haven't argued for engaging in military acts similar to those we used in WWII.
But it's not like this is the first instance of terrorism, or the first time we've had to consider civilians. We've been considering them for some 20 years; they have traditionally been a major reason for restraint. That approach is not working--understandably, the civilians of those countries don't really give a damn about us and our restraint.
Thus, I see no reason why we should prioritize their lives and safety.
287. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 2:27:59 PM
I don't think anyone is talking about prioritizing their lives and safety. They are mostly talking about the lack of a priority for *taking* their lives and safety. If the Taliban are odious enough to hide behind a wall of schoolchildren, they are the sons-of-bitches, not us.
288. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:30:36 PM
Stopas
forgive me if you've mentioned this already, but did you talk to the Princess of Ohio yet? How is she?
289. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:31:07 PM
Re. 287 -
If the Taliban are odious enough to hide behind a
wall of schoolchildren, they are the sons-of-bitches,
not us.
Was there really any question in your mind about that?
290. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:33:08 PM
Rask,
I thought--but could be wrong, there were a lot of posts flying about--that Scott took issue with my comments about civilians. Namely, that I think we will have failed if we take bin Laden while still prioritizing the lives of civilians in the affected countries--ie, sending in a sniper to kill bin Laden and a few pals.
291. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:33:14 PM
"One thing I think President Bush ought to do is to urge everyone to return to business as usual, like Mayor Giuliani has done."
Absolutely not. People have not grasped yet that we are all in danger, that the danger may be ongoing, that it isn't over yet and isn't going to be over for some time.
People shouldn't go back to business as usual. People should be mobilizing ourselves to protect our children, at least in public places, and to be on guard against attacks on Muslims in our communities.
I received a call from the superintendant of schools this morning in response to a message I had left at our town hall. He probably only called me back because he somehow got the impression I was a) a representative of the Muslim community or b) a member of the national emergency preparedness team.
Basically, the guy hasn't really started to deal with this issue at all. My call apparently made it clear that he would need to start responding to local concerns. I'm sure others in the community are thinking about this stuff too, and I am urging evryone I see to speak up and ask what we are doing to protect ourselves now and in the days and weeks to come.
These pricks, or less fully equipped monsters, are fully capable of hitting school buses and daycare centers--ask Rustler.
292. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 2:33:38 PM
If the Taliban are odious enough to hide behind a wall of schoolchildren, they are the sons-of-bitches, not us.
My understanding is, that to get one pilot to open the cockpit door, the terrorists began slitting the throats of flight attendants.
293. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:33:44 PM
Sigh--eg, not ie.
294. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 2:34:08 PM
Diva: She's fine (although unnerved like everyone else in New York or Washington). She was in class on East 71st street when the attack occurred. My wife and I knew she wouldn't be near the WTC and weren't worried, although it was a relief to hear from her later Tuesday morning.
295. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 2:36:40 PM
"Namely, that I think we will have failed if we take bin Laden while still prioritizing the lives of civilians in the affected countries--ie, sending in a sniper to kill bin Laden and a few pals."
No one disagrees with you. Getting rid of bin Laden doesn't eliminate state-sponsored terrorism, or at least punish those who sponsor it.
296. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:37:05 PM
Stopas
I'm sure it was a relief. Thanks for the update.
297. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 2:38:06 PM
Midway Airlines lays off 1,700
The company said in a statement that the action was being taken ``with the recognition that, following the recent terrorist attacks, demand for air transportation is expected to decline sharply.''
``We are deeply troubled by the impact this action will have on our customers, employees, creditors and community. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the resources necessary to permit us to reorganize in this environment,'' the statement said.
298. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:40:37 PM
oh shit.
299. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 2:41:14 PM
Re: Message # 291, Andonly.
Absolutely not. People have not grasped yet that we are all in danger, that the danger may be ongoing, that it isn't over yet and isn't going to be over for some time.
while true, it doesn't mean that we, as a nation, don't start to move on with our lives. life doesn't stop. learn the lessons and forge ahead. OH was right on.
300. Wombat - 9/12/2001 2:41:20 PM
I hope an Iraqi connection is established. That would be justification to finish what the Gulf War started.
Concerned:
What was also demonstrated was that the mode of delivery need not be an ICBM in order to cause an appalling amount of damage. I would hope that these attacks move NMD down the list of immediate defense spending priorities.
301. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:42:02 PM
No one disagrees with you. Getting rid of bin Laden doesn't eliminate state-sponsored terrorism, or at least punish those who sponsor it.
Actually, there are a fair amount of folks who disagree with me. I don't think Scott was one of them, though.
302. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:43:55 PM
Re. 300 -
Wombat:
How do you see significant defense spending as relates to suppression of terrorist activity? It would seem that that falls more under improving security and intelligence, not weapons systems.
303. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 2:44:13 PM
Of course there is a Iraqi connection, Wombat. Take it to the bank.
After all the people in power in America are Bush, Cheney and Powell.
304. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:45:22 PM
I was wondering when that would happen. US Airways is probably next. My dad is working at American now; I wonder if they'll lay people off?
It would be mildly ironic if the only two surviving airlines were the ones that were targeted.
305. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:45:32 PM
Re. 301 -
Name some.
306. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:46:55 PM
ABC reports that Ari Fleischer stated that the gov't has reason to believe that the White House was the target of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and that AF1 was also a target.
307. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:50:56 PM
Well, the Pentagon plane did seem to turn sharply at the last moment to take out the Pentagon. I wonder what their rationale was?
308. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:52:13 PM
where did I read someone (eyewitness?) say they thought at first it was headed for the WH?
309. judithathome - 9/12/2001 2:52:21 PM
and that AF1 was also a target.
I hope concerned sees this....
310. christipeters - 9/12/2001 2:54:07 PM
1:19p Rash of bomb threats against U.S. businesses and sympathizers in Cape Town, South Africa since yesterday. In northern Nigeria, where most of the population is Muslim, there have celebrations involving small numbers of people over yesterday's attacks.
1:00p Latest ATCSSC advisory from the FAA's ATC Command center in Virginia: "ATCSCC Advisory
ATCSCC ADVZY 010 DCC 09/12/2001 NAS STATUS UPDATE MESSAGE: CURRENTLY THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) IS IN OPERATION FOR MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MEDICAL EVACUATION FLIGHTS ONLY. THE RESUMPTION OF NORMAL OPERATIONS IN THE NAS IS EXPECTED TO BE A LENGTHY PROCESS WITH NO ESTABLISHED TIMELINE. ONE OF THE STEPS REQUIRED IS TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF EACH AIRPORTS' SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL READINESS. COORDINATION WITH AIR TRAFFIC AND MILITARY FACILITIES MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED TO RESUME NAS OPERATIONS AT AIRPORTS IDENTIFIED AS MEETING THE SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL CRITERIA. WHEN IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF AIRPORTS CAN RESUME OPERATIONS A NATIONAL TELCON WILL BE CONDUCTED. THE RESUMPTION OF NAS SERVICES AND PLANNING CONFERENCES WILL BE ANNOUNCED VIA COORDINATION WITH EACH ARTCC AND PUBLISHED ADVISORIES."
12:56p FBI has found the flight data recorder ("black box") from the aircraft that crashed near Pittsburgh, PA
311. Absensia - 9/12/2001 2:55:22 PM
CNN has sent out a bulletin saying the head of the Taliban has specifically asked the US government not to bomb Afghanistan. The request came from Islamabad, Pakistan.
I don't think the Pakistan government would give Afghanistan aide for terrorists or supply nuclear information, et al. Pakistan has to walk a thin line here. It wants to be on good terms with the US, it is trying to establish better ties with India, does not want any more problems with Afghanistan and is still flooded with Afghanistans fleeing the country, and also has Iran and Iraq as neighbors. Both Iraq and Iran have tried to pressure Pakistan to be less pro western. Also, it is to India's political best interest to try to draw Pakistan into this, as everyone knows.
312. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:56:27 PM
Interesting. ABC managed to ask Colin Powell about Fleischer's statement, and he said, 'Ari said that?' and refused to comment further beyond saying that he'd heard the same.
313. glendajean - 9/12/2001 2:59:05 PM
Their rationale could have been that they overshot the White House and the Pentagon was a second choice.
314. Absensia - 9/12/2001 2:59:50 PM
A friend from here, who is a black box expert was notified yesterday they wanted him in D.C. asap. He is often used when flights go down.
Frankly, I think much of the west coast, or at least the North West is still numb and can't understand it all. It seems more as if it was a mid air disaster. Terrorism just "doesn't happen" in the US. As far as west coast targets, although Boeing HQs have moved, the plants are here, and as are naval bases and submarine bases, and the "word" has always been that if there was war, Seattle would be one of the first hit.
315. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 3:01:56 PM
maybe they knew the gig was close to up and changed plans mid-flight to try and get the Pentagon versus the near certainty of defeat at the White House.
don’t wanna die for nothing, don’t ya know.
316. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:01:57 PM
Yeah, GJ, because the side of the Pentagon they hit isn't where all the big guns have their offices.
317. Åse - 9/12/2001 3:03:42 PM
I'm still a bit in the "This is a bad Testosterone summer movie" mode, and wouldn't be surprised to see the WTC standing tomorrow.
It is shocking and numbing.
318. Absensia - 9/12/2001 3:05:09 PM
Indy,
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islams are a very conservative anti West group who also criticise the Pakistani government for being Pro West. Such groups seem prevalent in those muslim countries who are at least friendly to the US. They don't speak for the governments of the countries but they are frightening.
319. theDiva - 9/12/2001 3:06:50 PM
Ase
yes, I keep expecting to wake up and find the world as it was.
Last night I dreamed a 727 headed straight for my house and instead crashed nose first into the pavement about a block away.
320. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:09:00 PM
I had dreams of dead people all night--bloody and burned. It surprised me, because I haven't felt consciously affected at all.
321. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:09:40 PM
The White House would be the smallest target of those hit. Maybe the pilot lost his nerve. If you were short, you hit a park, and if you overshoot it you hit a park (or eventually the Washington Monument). Coming from the north, the pilot sees he's not going to get it direct and looks over and sees the Pentagon sitting there like a big bull's eye target. Just speculation on my part.
322. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:10:33 PM
All the buildings around the White House are fairly short. There is a 12 story height limit for the District, so it's not like buildings are going to be up in the sky at plane level like Manhattan.
323. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 3:11:26 PM
NATO is considering to invoke the clause that says that an act of war against one member requires concerted action by all members.
I another development Arafat has donated blood to aid the victims.
Both items reported by BBC just now.
324. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:13:57 PM
Yes, Colin Powell made reference to NATO's deliberations in his statement.
325. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:14:06 PM
Arafat is in a position of any of his gestures against the terrorists not being taken too seriously. "I am shocked that there is gambling in this establishment."
326. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:16:00 PM
I disagree with that last, GJ. Arafat's concerns are local; has he ever been part of the faction that is anti-American? They are two different groups, as I understand it.
327. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:22:24 PM
Arafat has a long history as being a terrorist, and for being quite cavalier prior to his taking office whenever civilians have been hurt in terrorist attacks.
But my original point was less an judgement than a description. I doubt if many people outside Palestine take his comments or actions in a meaningful way, primarily based on long-term perceptions of him.
328. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:25:47 PM
Even if so, consider the impact his actions have on the Palestinians who are celebrating in the streets.
329. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 3:29:06 PM
Glenda
Of course. He's frantically trying to recover from the debacle of Palestinians beeing filmed celebrating in the streets. If you look closely you will find that the US is his only friend.
330. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 3:31:11 PM
The Taliban may be willing, finally, to hand over Usama bin Ladin. But it's also possible that the Taliban don't know where he is. It's been reported in the Pak press that Usama bin Ladin moves from camp to camp across Afghanistan with millions of dollars worth of sophisticated communications equipment.
331. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:40:35 PM
Rumsfeld just gave a strange statement to the effect that loose lips sink ships.
332. theDiva - 9/12/2001 3:41:19 PM
rut ro.
333. Wombat - 9/12/2001 3:45:06 PM
In answer to Concerned's question a while back on defense related funding priorities, two obvious areas would be reconaissance drones and building up stockpiles of "smart" weapons. Real time intelligence will be vital if there is any hope of tracking Bin Laden down. If sustained military action is needed, smart weapons will best suited for it.
334. Toenails - 9/12/2001 3:47:13 PM
Speaking as one who was none-too-pleased with the results of last November's election, I must state that I have been heartened and much-encouraged by the apparent competence and level-headedness demonstrated in the public utterances of our Secretary of State, our Secretary of Defense, and, yes, our President, in the wake of this attack.
Talk may be cheap, but their reactions, so far, have been appropriate, measured, and first-rate.
335. ronski - 9/12/2001 3:48:03 PM
Perhaps he was alluding to not wanting to tip the U.S.'s hand about retaliation.
Berry Berenson died on one of the planes. The same one the Angells were on.
336. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 3:49:25 PM
"Speaking as one who was none-too-pleased with the results of last November's election . . ."
It was DECEMBER'S election that was the problem.
337. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:49:54 PM
Yeah, I just read that. Marisa Berenson's sister; I didn't know any of her own work.
338. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:51:40 PM
Yikes, she was married to Tony Perkins.
339. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 3:53:17 PM
Passenger lists are at msnbc. I looked--I imagine they would not release the names of the suspected hijackers.
340. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 3:54:20 PM
But I agree with Toenails that the situation has been handled well by the President and the Cabinet (although as noted above I think the President should do more to urge a resumption of societal routine). In particular, our leaders have refrained from rashly making specific promises of retribution. In that regard, I'm reminded of the well-handled China/surveillance plane matter.
341. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 3:55:15 PM
Arafat would donate both kidneys if asked to, I think. His whole strategy has collapsed, it seems.
342. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 3:57:28 PM
Massud was attacked by Algerian suicide bombers.
343. theDiva - 9/12/2001 3:58:32 PM
they ran those lists on CNN this morning; on one of those planes was a 2 year old and a 4 year old.
344. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 3:58:48 PM
Here's some real wishful thinking: Maybe Arafat's (apparent) revulsion at this horrible act, committed (almost certainly) in supposed furtherance of Arabic and/or Muslim interests, will give him the heart and the balls to stand up to his radical constituents.
345. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:01:04 PM
I saw that, Diva. I flew out of Logan with my husband and two-year-old a few months ago.
346. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 4:01:39 PM
Rustler
Yes. Exit the Palestinian who suffers under the Israeli yoke. Enter the Palestinian who dances on the graves of innocent Americans.
347. mgleason - 9/12/2001 4:02:44 PM
Arafat appears to be increasingly irrelevant; they keep him around because he's the face of acceptable Palestinian struggle, but his days must surely be numbered.
348. judithathome - 9/12/2001 4:03:52 PM
Has anyone heard anything about the head of Intelligence in Saudi Arabia quitting abruptly yesterday? A friend called and mentioned this,