Sept 11, 2001

[sirs]

The fact he's a terrorist makes everything he says questionable.  That's the point I'm making, and without having some intimate connection with him, his absolute motives died with him

And you really should avoid trying to argue the notion rational thought

[Plane]

    I also believe that a long insurgent war in Afghanistan against the US was a part of Osama Bin Laden's plan. This not only fits in with what he was busy doing and saying, it matches what he was preparing for with large stocks in dugouts everywhere.

     He had seen the effect of a long Afghan war on the Soviet Union and we and they were the same thing as far as he was concerned , he might have hoped that we would be just as ruined as they.

      Osama Bin Laden was expert in Saudi Arabian politics , but he seemed to have a hazy idea of American capabilities and motives.

        From what he spoke I think he expected us to attack him enough to ensure his credibility then we would back away and quit being involved . This is when he might have brought his hardened fighters to Arabia and taken it in the name of a better grade of Islam.

      Our severity of attack being an order of magnitude more energetic than the Soviets might have been a big surprise to him, but this merely proves that he was a big dummy, while the Soviets fought him we were on the same side he was , not only providing war supplies , but we were being the bigger threat that kept the Soviets from spending greater resources . When we attacked the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan , we were not worried any more about an attack from the Soviet Union.

   

[sirs]

What he sorely did, and perhaps was his fatal error in judgement, was in underestimating Bush, and the lengths he was willing to go, to try and cripple AlQeada 

"...and the people that knocked these buildings down, will hear all of us soon"

[Plane]

The fact he's a terrorist makes everything he says questionable.  That's the point I'm making, and without having some intimate connection with him, his absolute motives died with him

And you really should avoid trying to argue the notion rational thought

You have to put up with us as we are .

Sorry.

The reason for terrorism has to be considered.

People do atrocious things to get noticed and heard, this doesn't mean that they cannot also lie, but the message and the method are not totally separated.

His speeches and writings were justification to his followers to do the drastic acts, that drew the attention for the purpose of recruiting more fighters and supporters, as well as inspiration in telling them what to expect as results from all their efforts.

So one of the reasons for terrorism is theater , and dissemination of a message on the back of the terrorist acts.

   Another reason for Terrorism is local and distant control of behavior. Local people are dismayed and cowed by the violence and become co-operative, supportive and cheerleading even. Distant people may change their behaviors also , depends on how awful it is and how the threat is directed and felt , I expect the distant effect is less than the local , this might be why some attacks were needed on our own soil.

      Both reasons require that a message be given, to those you are recruiting, encouraging and asking for support you might lie , but it would have to be a lie that was consistent with the mission you were giving them, to those you are intimidating and   threatening and coercing your message needs to be consistent with the behavior you want of them even if it need not be the whole truth.

 

[sirs]

Don't worry Plane, your ability to rationally argue points political is uncanny

[Plane]

What he sorely did, and perhaps was his fatal error in judgement, was in underestimating Bush, and the lengths he was willing to go, to try and cripple AlQeada 

"...and the people that knocked these buildings down, will hear all of us soon"

    I think Bush was pretty good , but not excellent.
     I think he recognized the best choices he was being offered , but I would call him more excellent if he had somehow created some more choices and taken better control of the situation earlier.

      Our Next President will need to be a good game player , both Chess and Poker, because our Present President is leaving a burning house , totally without control of the situation and with much resources diminished.

      Do you know how much of our Air Force and Navy equipment dates back to President Reagan?
      Or how much of it dates to President Nixon? Even President Johnson?

     How about our Generals?  Are they really expert in running the sort of battle we are facing? Running the sort of army we have?

     Our Next President will be given few choices and finite resources , less than Bush or Obama , this will be a need for excellence , perhaps forcing new choices into being , perhaps creating unexpected resources.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No US president has ever had all brand new military equipment. The US clearly has the most powerful military in the world. Fighting ISL is not what we are prepared for, but ISL is even less well prepared for what they are attempting. They have the home court advantage.

[Plane]

  Every president since the forty-first has had less than his predecessor.

   When the military has shrunk to the exact right size will some sort of bell sound?

     How do our enemies know that we still have plenty  ?

      It seems as though a massacre on the same scale as Rwanda during the Clinton administration is happening now in Syria and Iraq.

     Right now I would guess that every young man in the area is being offered  the chance to enlist in Isis, and anyone not eager to carry a rifle for them is digging a hole for himself.

      Estimates for the size of Isis range from 100k to 300k, not too much to handle , but catching them all with drones is not likely.

       After there has been enough time to draft a few regiments , hitting the original invaders without also hitting a lot of unfortunate innocents will be impossible with any thing .

       And the draftees will be eagerly shooting at us rather than preserving their innocence anyway.

        If I could I would advise a serious talk with Turkey right now.

       Turkey is right there and ought to be very interested in the nature of their neighbors government .

        Turkey is the favored route for fighters going in and contraband coming out.

       Turkey is a NATO member and the second largest contributor of personnel.

         Turk soldiers are serious , professional , effective soldiers, prone to shout "All the world is worth one Turk".

           There is less language barrier , because of proximity , Turks will be the best available for sorting out the mixture of invaders and natives.

           What we gotta do first is find out what the Turks want , and figure out how to want something compatible .

            Second , have a long talk with the generals of Kurdistan, most of the same advantages as the Turks apply , but the big problem is that they might want something that the Turks do not.

           Third talk with the leaders (if you can call them that)of Iraq. Tell them that they are already third on the list for consideration and might not get anything that they want if they do not get it on the ball.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The last truly triumphant war was the Spanish-American War.

This country fights far too many wars. Wars are not good for societies.

Iraq, Syria and the other Middle Eastern countries do not pose any major danger to the US, as long as we know how to prevent major terrorist attacks.

Turkey and Kurdistan are important to the defeat of Isl, more so than the US.

[Plane]

  Having wars might be of questionable benefit , but loosing wars is unquestionably non-beneficial.

   If we were ten times as pacific as we are , we might fight more wars than we do , this might seem counter intuitive to you , but I think in pretty much this way.

    The more we are militaristic and strong , the more it is a real choice for us ,of whether to fight or not.

     Americans tend to vote both ways , in cycles.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is nonsense.

Better diplomacy and foreign policy could have avoided nearly all the conflicts we have had since WWII. Most of our problems are blowback from Stupid CIA Tricks.

[Plane]

That is nonsense.

Better diplomacy and foreign policy could have avoided nearly all the conflicts we have had since WWII. Most of our problems are blowback from Stupid CIA Tricks.

Well perhaps diplomacy could have mitigated some situations , but isn't warfare diplomacy by other means?

  As long as we have enemies who want something else more than they want peace there is no potential for diplomacy to end all war, nor even very many of them.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Warfare is diplomacy by the worst of means. War should be avoided unless the country is actually threatened.
This country mongers wars because it results in profits for the weapons makers and promotions for the military.
Of course, the average noncommissioned soldier or sailor usually enlists because he cannot find a better job elsewhere, and he likes the benefits. I don't blame him for that. But Saddam Hussein actually was not threatening my freedom nearly so much as it is presently being threatened by a constant instability and religious war in Syria and Iraq.

We do not actually have enemies that have designs on American territory. They may not approve of the way American society spreads immorality by showing Baywatch on satellite TV, but they are not going to be able to raise an army to attack the US over that. We no longer have to worry about oil have all we need at home, and American tropops should not die so Exxonmobil, BP, Texaco, Shell and the rest can make huge profits. I support giving some weapons to those in Syria and Iraq will provide that actual soldiers, so that stability can be restored in Syria and Iraq, but if the Arabs and Kurds cannot get their act together, then we just stop giving them passports.

[Plane]

We do not actually have enemies that have designs on American territory.

Why is there no enemy that can attack us on our own territory? How did AlQueda break this rule?

They may not approve of the way American society spreads immorality by showing Baywatch on satellite TV, but they are not going to be able to raise an army to attack the US over that.

How long did it take Isis to gather 300,000 man in arms?

We no longer have to worry about oil have all we need at home, and American tropops should not die so Exxonmobil, BP, Texaco, Shell and the rest can make huge profits.

fracking is good hmmm?

I support giving some weapons to those in Syria and Iraq will provide that actual soldiers, so that stability can be restored in Syria and Iraq, but if the Arabs and Kurds cannot get their act together, then we just stop giving them passports.

   Believe it or not, overseas people feel much the same about fighting as normal people(Americans).

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fracking is certainly not good everywhere it is being done. But US oil production has contributed to the price fluctuations being less now than previously. I do not need to be for fracking for this to have occurred.