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"

Very good points all.

To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
war.

Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
there for the next 10,000 years.

Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
about that.

This war is a test of will. Theirs against ours. So far we're running it
like a 5th Avenue PR campaign and they're running it like it should be run.

We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest mistake
of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
not work this time.

We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They all
die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.

Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
you know it.

BillC





"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
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.

and so on...

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"

There are a whole bunch of faulty assumptions here, beginning with the idea
that we lost the war in Vietnam. At worst, it was a push, but we did achieve
the primary goal of halting the spread of communism in Asia. Ultimately,
Vietnam demonstrated the abject failure of communism and should be seen as
one of the events that led to the collapse of communism in Russia and
Europe.

The invasion of Iraq has accomplished similar geo-political goals. The
Findlandization of such countries as Iran and Libya has been evident. The
thing we must do is stop allowing terrorists to control our media. The
beheading of a few hostages has absolutely no military consequence, for
example, but the tremendous publicity gained by these actions has inspired
thousands of others.

These people want only one thing: the complete destruction of all infidels.
The thing that people are going to have to understand is that it is possible
to lose this war and they should understand the consequences. Terrorists now
control Spain. Spain will do whatever the terrorists want; all they have to
do is make a few threats or blow up a train. We are in danger of losing the
Philippines.

If we allow the terrorists to gain control of this country then we are
doomed. You are right when you say the terrorists are taking a long view.
Their ultimate goal is to create fundamentalist Islamic states in every
country in the world. But refusing to fight back, refusing to destroy them
wherever they are found, refusing to use every weapon and measure at our
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it. They must understand that
the media will no longer do their dirty work for them. Their shrines and
holy places can no longer remain inviolable. Their religious leaders can no
longer be allowed to maintain private armies. Countries that allow the
transit of fighters should expect a nuclear response. Those who raise money
for terrorist organizations and allow their mosques to be used as forums for
recruiting terrorists should die and their mosques should be leveled, no
matter where in the world those mosques are. Moslems in the United States
should understand that the consequences of shielding terrorists in their
midst and apologizing for them will result in their extermination. They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and expect
democratic protections.

It is time to take this threat seriously and stop using it as a political
football or as an arena for judicial grandstanding. So far I have seen
absolutely no sign that either party is willing to do that.

It's a war for civilization all right but the enemy is no more Islam than
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian patriot. This situation is only going to be
resolved when the societies that produce the terrorists change so that there
are no longer large numbers if the disaffected that see terror and
fundamentalism as the only path. These are Islamic societies and nothing
short of sterilizing the ground with nuclear bombs is going to change that.
Terrorism is as abhorrent to true Islam as it is to Christianity. Unless we
are prepared to kill millions to eliminate thousands of terrorists we will
not solve this problem until the Islamic societies become our allies in the
struggle. Your kind of thinking, and just about everything our government
is doing, works directly against this.

The distortions of culture, society, and government in the mideast that lead
to this are largely of our (the West's) doing. The very borders of the
nations were established by Britain and other powers of the time without
regard to ethnic borders that would create stable nations. We threw the
economies and cultures completely out of whack with oil money and tolerated
and supported brutal dictatorships that would keep the oil flowing.

Bin Laden and Sadam themselves are largely creations of the CIA supported
struggle against Russia in Afghanistan and our meddling in the Iran / Iraq
war. We need to accept that our decades of mistakes and meddling have
created a situation in which terrorism is as inevitable as hurricanes. We
don't go into a tizzy of breast beating, changing of society, and
restriction of civil liberties when a hurricane does millions of dollars in
damage and kills many. Hell, we even give the rich folks on the barrier
beaches money to rebuild (until recently). Hurricanes and earthquakes are
not manhood and virility challenges to our leaders so everyone shrugs and
life goes on.

Israel has proved that terrorism can not be eliminated by force even within
a small geographic area where some of the toughest people in the world have
enormous control and decades of understanding the situation on the ground
and the culture they are dealing with. What chance do we have over a huge
area at the end of a long logistical trail when the Pentagon can't even find
enough translators?

This is now an intractable and long term problem that is going to have to be
managed. The solution will take decades and patience. Thinking of
terrorism as something that has to be eliminated before the next election or
we'll need a new president will make true solutions impossible to pursue or
implement. Nothing constructive will happen until Islamic societies start
to function properly in the modern world, leadership in them is supported by
the population at large, and they see themselves as allies with us in the
struggle against terror. Everything being done now is probably being
cheered by Bin Laden.

It's much like trying to glide to a landing spot after an engine out. Pull
back on the yoke and you will land shorter or even stall and crash. Right
now, all the passengers are screaming, "Pull up, pull up!" and big burly
fellows are struggling to the front to try and grab the yoke to pull it back
further. Kerry isn't going to do any better unless he can become the kind
of leader who can calm the passengers and regain control. I don't have a
lot of confidence that he can do that but I'd rather not have a pilot in
this situation who clearly thinks that how hard he pulls back on the yoke is
the test of his leadership.

--
Roger Long

Interesting comments. I saw just a couple of things I thought I might
question.


On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:02:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
disposal: that is the way to lose this war. The terrorists and their
sympathizers must be made to understand that one of the costs of continuing
this war will be the end of Islam as they know it.

Does this mean you consider the war to be a holy war? A war of
US/Christians vs Fundimental/Islam?

They
cannot continue to advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and expect
democratic protections.


Well, in the US, they are specifically granted that freedom. I'm not
saying, this is what they envisioned, just the same, they did foresee the
possible need of our governmet being overthrown. Thusly, advocating is
specifically protected, here in the states, under our Constitution. Like
it or not, that's where we stand.


Greg

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

In article ,
"BillC85" wrote:

To answer Jay's question, we hit them with a resolve never before seen in
war.

Islam needs to be beaten back into the cave it slithered out of and kept
there for the next 10,000 years.

Islam is the enemy and we are in a war for civilization. Make no mistake
about that.

We're applying Western values to this fight and that is the biggest mistake
of all. We try to talk things out, we try to reason. Those tactics will
not work this time.

We have to fight them on their own terms. No quarter. No mercy. They all
die. Anything less than total commitment is capitulation.

Flame away boys and girls. It's the only way and in your heart of hearts
you know it.

No, sorry, I don't -- it's absolutely not "the only way".

We do have to fight "them" (the bad guys), and do it resolutely,
no question about it.

But we also have to educate and persuade and empower the good guys --
the decent people -- who are a majority in Islamic lands every bit as
much as in Christian or whatever lands.

Failing to do that -- focusing only on "no quarter, no mercy",
abandoning our own Western values -- will in fact accomplish exactly the
opposite, and drive the good guys in the Islamic world the other way.

Christianity at one time, some centuries ago, was nearly as bad as
fundamentalist Islam is today (and so are some of our Christian and
Jewish zealots today). The Western world has progressed a long way
beyond that; Islam and the Arab world can also.

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

Hmm, last I checked the guys who watched the last choppers leave were
running the place.

Ho Chi Minn was actually a nationalist who said that his first choice would
have been to become a client of the US to help his country become a bulwark
against Chinese expansion. He looked too much like a communist to us so we
spurned him and chased him into taking the next best offer.

Sure, we may have checked Russia on several fronts, including Afghanistan,
but we did it in a way that left us with the current mess and the very real
danger of losing the countries you mention to an even more difficult and
intractable enemy.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't fight but that we should recognize that you
can't build a house with just a hammer. We need to fight and work in a way
that achieves what we want.

You are absolutely right about one thing though. If we don't get control of
our media we won't have the national will to keep on making the mistakes we
are making now. Don't worry, I'm sure Ashcroft is working on that and it
will get taken care of after the election (unless the tough guys lose).

--
Roger Long