Re: UBL is George Washington
At 12:00 AM 7/4/04 -0400, Howie Goodell wrote:
For starters, I think the use of terrorism is a moral a distinction worth making. Murdering thousands of civilians is not the same thing as attacking enemy troops. (To be consistent, the plane that hit the Pentagon was not terrorism, but a military attack with civilian collateral damage.)
The yanks did not wear regular uniforms and did not march in rows in open fields like Gentlemen. Asymmetric warfare means not playing by *their* rules.
Major Variola (ret) writes:
The yanks did not wear regular uniforms and did not march in rows in open fields like Gentlemen. Asymmetric warfare means not playing by *their* rules.
But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful. The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise. If al qaeda bombed government buildings or targetted the private residences or offices of government officials, they might get more sympathy, from me at least. Destroying an pair of buildings and killing thousands of citizens -most of whom couldn't give an accurate account of U.S. forces distribution in the MidEast- is not a step forward.
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 09:32:16PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful. The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose
Au contraire. People in the US (stupid gits) are genuinely afraid. They're voting law and order types into office, with strongarm tendencies in foreign politics which is about the best recruitment program the mange-bearded turbaned fringe could ever come up with. They'd cream their pants with the thought of Shrubya being reelected. It's about the best thing that could happen to them. If they knew the right place and time to bomb the Xtian terrorists into office, they'd be on the plane already.
brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise. If al qaeda
This is not an accurate view of what is happening in the EU.
bombed government buildings or targetted the private residences or offices of government officials, they might get more sympathy, from me at least. Destroying an pair of buildings and killing thousands of citizens -most of whom couldn't give an accurate account of U.S. forces distribution in the MidEast- is not a step forward.
Yes, it is. You're just confused about what their goals are. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 09:32:16PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
Major Variola (ret) writes:
The yanks did not wear regular uniforms and did not march in rows in open fields like Gentlemen. Asymmetric warfare means not playing by *their* rules.
But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful. The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise. If al qaeda
Uh, the last I heard bin Ladin and the rest of al-queda hated socialists, which is why they didn't jive with Saddam. And, in fact, wasn't that exactly what the jihad in Afghanistan was all about -- killing commies? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> writes:
But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful.
It's been extraordinarily successful. The US is driving itself (and a lot of the rest of the world) nuts with terrorists-under-the-beds paranoia. I recently saw a replay of some speech that Bush made shortly after 9/11 where he said something about "the terrorists wanted to demoralise? frighten? us. This has failed", and my reaction was "Who are you kidding?". The terrorists have achieved their goals, and then some. The correct response would have been what the UK did in WWII, which was "business as usual" to let the opposition know that they couldn't be intimidated. In contrast, all Bush is doing is telling them which buttons to push. Peter.
On 2004-07-05T21:32:16+0200, Anonymous wrote:
Major Variola (ret) writes:
The yanks did not wear regular uniforms and did not march in rows in open fields like Gentlemen. Asymmetric warfare means not playing by *their* rules.
But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful. The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise. If al qaeda
Who cares who sides with Al Qaeda? They're not keeping track of their sympathizers. It's foreign policy change, social change ("reform" perhaps?), and volunteers for martyrdom they want, not rhetorical support.
bombed government buildings or targetted the private residences or offices of government officials, they might get more sympathy, from me at least.
The WTC and the pentagon were specific, well-thought-out targets. The plane that crashed in PA was headed to the Capitol. If you're so eager to see Al Qaeda blow up better targets, why not suggest a few?
Destroying an pair of buildings and killing thousands of citizens -most of whom couldn't give an accurate account of U.S. forces distribution in the MidEast- is not a step forward.
As everyone else pointed out, Even though the 9/11 attacks may not have garnered your support, it accomplished other objectives.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Anonymous wrote:
But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful. The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise. If al qaeda bombed government buildings or targetted the private residences or offices of government officials, they might get more sympathy, from me at least. Destroying an pair of buildings and killing thousands of citizens -most of whom couldn't give an accurate account of U.S. forces distribution in the MidEast- is not a step forward.
Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense. Either they were very stupid at picking their targets, or their goals are not quite so obvious - Unless the strategy was to short-sell the stock market the day before. Did the FTC/FBI/NSA/CIA/etc find anything along these lines (yet)? I've not been paying much attention to the news as of late.
Sunder wrote:
Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense.
Doesn't hitting a world financial center impede the funding of imperialism? If you apply the same standards the US uses to classify dual use infrastructure, and organizations "linked to" the enemy, I think the WTC is pretty high on the target list. The US bombed water treatment plants, electrical facilities, and bridges in Iraq. Certainly not military targets either. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On 2004-07-06T11:28:41-0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
Sunder wrote:
Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense.
Doesn't hitting a world financial center impede the funding of imperialism?
Empirically, I don't think so. Since September 11th, funding to the military and security industries have increased substantially through DHS and military contracts. It may be that the only way out is through, and that the only way to be free from Western Imperialism is to cause it to strangle itself. In the short term, however, terrorists have not succeeded in getting our imperialist policies changed. 9/11 with Dubya at the helm can have only one result.
If you apply the same standards the US uses to classify dual use infrastructure, and organizations "linked to" the enemy, I think the WTC is pretty high on the target list.
Yep. Even ignoring specific entities that officed in the WTC, it was an effective target. When a government is in debt 70%+ of the GDP (2002 - $10.4T), there's little distinction between private financial targets and government targets.
The US bombed water treatment plants, electrical facilities, and bridges in Iraq. Certainly not military targets either.
Each democratic government likes to flood the logos with the notion that it only attacks military targets; it convinces citizens that their government is humane, and helps to pacify the non-interventionists. In practice, intelligence is never accurate. Hitting only military targets, even if that were the goal which is clearly not the case -- is not possible. A stated policy of attacking only military targets encourages the use of human shields by the enemy, which in turn drives up the "civilian casualties" decried so strongly by the media. -- "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that." "Not your decision to make." "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. She deserved to be born with a clean slate." - Beatrix; Bill; Kill Bill V.2
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Justin wrote:
On 2004-07-06T11:28:41-0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
Sunder wrote:
Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense.
Doesn't hitting a world financial center impede the funding of imperialism?
Empirically, I don't think so. Since September 11th, funding to the military and security industries have increased substantially through DHS and military contracts. It may be that the only way out is through, and that the only way to be free from Western Imperialism is to cause it to strangle itself.
Precisely. They are doing to us what we did to the soviets: they making us spend ourselves right out of existence.
In the short term, however, terrorists have not succeeded in getting our imperialist policies changed.
9/11 with Dubya at the helm can have only one result.
Dubya at the helm can have only 1 result. 9/11 was just his cover.
If you apply the same standards the US uses to classify dual use infrastructure, and organizations "linked to" the enemy, I think the WTC is pretty high on the target list.
Yep. Even ignoring specific entities that officed in the WTC, it was an effective target. When a government is in debt 70%+ of the GDP (2002 - $10.4T), there's little distinction between private financial targets and government targets.
And this was a prime target. Financial disruption from *just* the tower collapses was significant across the economy as a whole: lost records, insurance claims, lawsuits, etc., exacted a very substantial loss against their enemy.
The US bombed water treatment plants, electrical facilities, and bridges in Iraq. Certainly not military targets either.
Each democratic government likes to flood the logos with the notion that it only attacks military targets; it convinces citizens that their government is humane, and helps to pacify the non-interventionists.
In practice, intelligence is never accurate. Hitting only military targets, even if that were the goal which is clearly not the case -- is not possible.
Nonetheless, the military *does* consider places like WTC to be legitimate *military* targets. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them." Osama Bin Laden
participants (9)
-
Anonymous -
Eric Cordian -
Eugen Leitl -
Harmon Seaver -
J.A. Terranson -
Justin -
Major Variola (ret) -
pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz -
Sunder