The next attack (On Topic)

Why is this on topic for this forum? Face it, even if the next terrorist
action is carried out with trained hamsters marching down 42 ND street with
little explosive backpacks, shutting down general aviation will be a
centerpiece of the response.

Those of us in aviation have followed the security situation more closely
than most so we know that Al Qaeda can pretty much attack at will. The TFR'
s, the chain link fences installed around rural airports, the 2% of shipping
containers inspected, may have lengthened the terrorist planning sessions by
a couple hours but the nation is a colander. Plugging up a dozen holes hasn'
t changed the situation a bit.

The timing of the next attack can be predicted by figuring out what Al Qaeda
would want to achieve at this point. If being stranded away from home or
otherwise losing the use of your airplane would be a problem, you should
give this some thought in the same way you might look at the tropical
weather patterns before planning a late summer flight to the east coast.

One of the very few things that our intelligence (is that the right word?)
apparatus has gotten right is the idea that the election is the big, fat,
juicy target. The ship of state forges on with its great inertia making it
virtually immune to outside influences. Once every four years however, the
wheel is connected directly to a big flapping sail that can be yanked either
way by the gusts of public opinion and fear. Public opinion and fear is what
terrorism is all about. It's an opportunity not to be missed.

If Al Qaeda wants to influence the election, which way are they going to
cast their "vote"? Important question if you are planning a GA trip around
the time of either convention. Before giving it some more thought, I said,
"The republican convention, of course." All the leadership that conceived
and carried out the Iraq war gathered in the most symbolic city and also the
one that by geography and demographics is the easiest in which to mount an
attack. Who could resist?

On the other hand Bush and his administration have made the most basic and
fundamental error in the war on terror. It's the same mistake we made in
Vietnam and that the British made in the revolution. It's best illustrated
by the Israeli struggle with the suicide bombers. Israel thinks that the
struggle is one of whether they can blow up enough safe houses and attack
enough Hamas leaders from the air to force the Palestinians to stop. Hamas
knows that the purpose of the suicide bombing is to get Israel to attack
safe houses and shoot at cars with helicopters so they can build the kind of
society in which martyrdom is taught as part of the first grade curriculum.
So far, they are winning.

The purpose of Al Qaeda is not primarily to influence U.S. or world opinion
or actions. They are taking a much longer view. Their object is to influence
the hearts and minds inside the Muslim world so that their jihad becomes the
kind of irresistible tidal wave of history that took out communism.

I do not question Bush's resolve, toughness, integrity, or patriotism but he
is repeating one of history's oldest mistakes. I just heard a reporter who
has been in close contact with the resistance in Iran since the beginning.
Thousands of former Sadam toughs who, a year ago, were leading lives about
as secular as street hoods in any nation have now given up drinking,
smoking, and become devout and fanatic Muslims dedicated to the Bin Laden
cause. As even people in the Bush administration have said, we are creating
terrorists far faster than we are killing them. We were bailing the boat
with a thimble and then we put a two foot hole in it.

If Bin Laden were an all powerful puppet master who could direct events
precisely, he could not have done better than to create the Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, gang. The Viet Cong were overjoyed when Nixon began bombing the
north. They knew that the war would be won by transporting disassembled
artillery pieces by bike and foot along jungle trails and that a populous
whose homes were being bombed would turn to that task with much greater
will. History repeats itself. If Al Qaeda thinks it can influence the
outcome of the election, I'm sure they will strive to keep Bush in office.

How Al Qaeda will attempt to support Bush I'm not sure. Bin Laden is clearly
a student of history though and knows that a panicked electorate will be
unlikely to switch to a new leader in a crisis. An early attack would also
leave time for investigation and recrimination that could lead to a desire
for change. The democratic convention is too early. I'll fly with little
worry this month.

The republican convention is also early but they might feel that this is
outweighed by the effect on their own troops and undecided potential jihad
members of staging a spectacular attack on the perceived enemy. I wouldn't
lay bets on this one.

Both during the republican convention and the last half of October, I'm
going to try and fly so that the ATC call to land immediately will leave me
and my plane at a convenient airport.

--
Roger Long

You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
alternatives in your post.

If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
we to do?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:02:31 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

You make several good points, Roger -- but I didn't seen any viable
alternatives in your post.

If we aren't to fight back, for fear of creating more terrorists, what are
we to do?


Excellent question. Most experts agree that one of the biggest efforts we
should be making is to not only continue to rebuild, but most importantly,
start social reform programs. We need to be spending money educating the
uneducated. Their most powerful weapon is ignornance. It's the same
weapon that Christian (e.g. Catholic) churches used for hundreds of years.
Breed ignorant, uneducated masses and they are yours to control.
Education on world events, religion, world economy, domocracy and politics
are the weapons which will win the long-war. This is THE weapon and THE
long-view that the fundimentalist are using. It needs to be our weapon
too.

Greg

Jay,

You'll read my other response I'm sure.

Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and still
do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things like
that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The issue
is how it was done.

The purpose of the invasion was what came after we had control. That part of
it has got to be the most massively mishandled, unplanned, and screwed up
undertaking in human history. Instead of being recognized as just a speed
bump on the way to the real task, the invasion was viewed as the main event.
It was like sending paratroopers out of a plane without ammunition, food, or
a plan.

The scale of what needed to be done post-invasion is something that the U.S.
could never do on its own without significantly screwing up the economy.
Just the fact of our trying to do it alone doomed it politically.

Doing it alone became a test of Bush proving his cowboy toughness. Real men
don't ask for help. There was no compelling reason to invade Iraq last year
or before the next election other than to influence domestic opinion.

Bush et al are like an IFR pilot who needed to make an IFR flight. He felt
that he had to make the flight on time in order to impress his boss (the
voters). There wasn't time to do a preflight, the radios were acting up, and
the vacuum system was erratic. Now he's up in the murk with no
communications and partial panel.

The purposes of the flight are not the issue. Whether the pilot is a fool
for not accommodating the schedule to the realities and conducting the
flight responsibly is.

Look at the international aspect of terror, the camps spread all over the
world, the drug connections, the 911 hijackers living in Germany. This is
something that can only be fought by a world united against it and that has
to include constructive change in the Islamic nations. Sure, we want it to
go away right now but nothing is going to work until that unity of purpose
is achieved. Sometimes you have to just accept that you can't make progress
on your objective until you have first created the means to do so. Bush
skipped that step.

I was in Europe the Summer before 911. Everyone was complaining that Bush
was doing more to isolate the US than any president since before WWII. 911
came along after we had ****ed off just about every friend we ever had. Iraq
then became a giant wedge pounded into the gap.

The only way the US can win this fight alone it to seal our borders,
eliminate GA and everything similar to it, register and control the
movements of all citizens, monitor all mail and other communication, stop
import of most goods, and imprison anyone who appears vaguely different.

Vaporizing the Mideast would also work but the fallout would blow around and
poison us as well.

Many things in life are hard and require the patience and wisdom to endure
problems while you develop the means to solve them. Bush is a guy who always
had the way made easy for him and always took the easy way out. Ordering
invasions is easy and it's easy to look tough when you pick up the phone.
Faced with probably the biggest test a president has faced since Lincoln,
Bush skipped right to the easy part and probably blew our chance to get this
back on track for generations.

I hope GA and a lot of other great and noble things in our society and the
world will survive what is to come.

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Jay,

You'll read my other response I'm sure.

Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and
still
do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things like
that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The issue
is how it was done.


I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of the oil,
then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument of people like
Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan because of oil, despite
the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no pipelines, and no significant
production facilities.

In article , "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the invasion of Iraq and
still
do. It needed to be done. The ugly thing is that we do not do things
like
that other places they are needed because there is no oil there. The
issue
is how it was done.


I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of the
oil,
then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument of people
like
Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan because of oil,
despite
the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no pipelines, and no significant
production facilities.

details details details...

--
Bob Noel

"C J Campbell" wrote in
:

I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of
the oil, then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument
of people like Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan
because of oil, despite the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no
pipelines, and no significant production facilities.



What about the opium??

"smpharmanaut" wrote in message
8.51...
"C J Campbell" wrote in
:

I am not convinced of the motivation. If we invaded Iraq because of
the oil, then where is the oil? Even more ridiculous is the argument
of people like Michael Moore who insist that we invaded Afghanistan
because of oil, despite the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, no
pipelines, and no significant production facilities.



What about the opium??

I suspect that the critics of the war may be using a lot of that.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:21:41 GMT, Roger Long wrote:

The only way the US can win this fight alone it to seal our borders,
eliminate GA and everything similar to it, register and control the
movements of all citizens, monitor all mail and other communication, stop
import of most goods, and imprison anyone who appears vaguely different.

you are on your best way to finalize it. You are more than 50% towards the
goal.


Vaporizing the Mideast would also work but the fallout would blow around and
poison us as well.


Jesus ... is this all you have to say? "the fallout would harm you as
well?"

most of the people there (mideast) are struggling to survive every single
day, only a very small percentage of the whole polulation of the whole
world are terrorists.

many of your arguments are proving the terrorists and the radical islam's
points: the west always does (in a recless way) what they want. nobody from
the west ever said "please" or "thank you" or "I'm sorry".

what a shame.

#m

--
Michael Moo Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Martin Hotze" wrote Vaporizing the Mideast would
also work but the fallout would blow around and
poison us as well.


Jesus ... is this all you have to say? "the fallout would harm you as
well?"


There was intended to be a note of black humor and satire of extreme
positions there that didn't get through.

The greatest evil and tragedy in all of this has been the misery and
suffering it has brought to the innocent. That misery and suffering is the
primary fuel for the terrorist machine.

--
Roger Long