![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message ... Hi Tom, And an effective alternative is...what? better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start. And what could we have done with that intelligence? arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane? I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and for information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus. what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information enabling such arrests? Who is the arresting officer? The World Police Department? I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available. And if it was? Send the Iraqi Secret Police to make the arrests? Or choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment they are shooting them at people we don't like. We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the Soviets with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd never had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to kill each other. It's not as if the Muhajeen had ever been in love with US or the West, nor vice versa. They welcomed the weapons, but it was not so unforseeable that they would just as well turn them against us. We gave aid and weapons to South Korea and it did us very well. It turned against us with the USSR and France, but not England. Very little is forseeable -- hindsight is 20/20. Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"? People who share our values, a common conception of human rights. Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be prevented. Prevented how? arresting (or killing) the terrorists. Who's going to make the arrests? Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!). What would "finish" that job in your view? To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy. Well, how do we begin to "establish a stable from of government"? BTW, recall that it took 6-8 years to get Japan and Germany back on their feet after WW2. Iraq was never really about terrorism, was it? They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly funding. Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim. Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as justification for the war? It's out there...just not in the mainstream media. For example, two of the 9/11 terrorists met with the head of Iraqi Intelligence shortly before they came to the US. But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi Arabia if that was our motivation. With the resistance we had going into an obvious target like Iraq, how much more resistance would there have been going into Saudi Arabia? For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for the Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel" society. Yes, I agree with that. With all the hot air about 9/11 being based on various grievances about US policy, it's "funny" that all their spokesmen said it was NOT the case. "You worship life, while we worship death" doesn't sound like a policy gripe. In short, they hate our liberty, our prosperity and our immorality --see the thread about Brittany Spears :~) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Tom,
And what could we have done with that intelligence? arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane? I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and for information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus. what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information enabling such arrests? Who is the arresting officer? The World Police Department? Why? The terrorists boarded the planes in the US. I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available. And if it was? Send the Iraqi Secret Police to make the arrests? see above. The terrorists have spent prolonged time in Germany and the US. Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!). What would "finish" that job in your view? To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy. Well, how do we begin to "establish a stable from of government"? BTW, recall that it took 6-8 years to get Japan and Germany back on their feet after WW2. Yes exactly. That's what I would call a finished Job and I'm very grateful for that. They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly funding. Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim. Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as justification for the war? It's out there...just not in the mainstream media. For example, two of the 9/11 terrorists met with the head of Iraqi Intelligence shortly before they came to the US. But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi Arabia if that was our motivation. With the resistance we had going into an obvious target like Iraq, how much more resistance would there have been going into Saudi Arabia? Go after a secondary target, when the main support for Al Quaida comes from somewhere else? You really believe that this is going to help much? For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for the Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel" society. Yes, I agree with that. With all the hot air about 9/11 being based on various grievances about US policy, it's "funny" that all their spokesmen said it was NOT the case. I'm obviously not a spokesman. I never blamed US policy for terrorism in that way. While it is true, that these "grievances" are felt by some Arabs, I certainly don't consider them justified. Unfortunately, if played rightly by people like OBL, they can nonetheless be turned into a burning desire to kill and hurt. Anything that will increase those feelings, how unjustified they may be, will play right into OBLs hands. I still believe that the war on Iraq did if anything raise the threat of terrorism. Not because it was not in some way justifyable by the way Saddam ridiculed the UN over the last 10 years and uncertainty about his military potential, but because it humiliated the Arabs yet again, while not significantly hurting the supplies of OBL. In short, they hate our liberty, our prosperity and our immorality --see the thread about Brittany Spears :~) Again, there is a lot of truth in that :-) regards, Friedrich -- for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|