h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just read an article at Jane's that suggests that Iraq is behind the attacks. You can link to the artilce through here [http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568226].

The article suggests that Iraq has been making inroards into the Al-Qaeda network.

If that's the case, I think the proper reaction is clear. An invasion of Iraq is possible, we've proved that. We should have finished the job last time. If we eliminate regimes that support terrorism, then it will be harder for terrorists to act.

I do think we should meet with Afghanistan to negotiate his extradition to the United States. I don't particularlly fear war, but then again, I don't care for wasting lives, money, and effort if we can get it by talking to people. It's amazing what you can get if you show people a little respect.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
Speak softly and carry a big stick. - Theodore Roosevelt

In August of this year two Mossad agents travelled to the US to convey intelligence information to the CIA. The details being that a force of 200 terrorists were poised to strike high profile targets in the US. This strike was attributed to Bin Laden/Iraq. The CIA apparently treated this with caution. US officials are now saying that if this is found to be true "heads will roll".

A further report in Germany from a man in Civil Court case gave similar information. The judge dismissed the information, presuming the man to be mentally ill.

Boy that sucks.

As far as I can tell, there's no one nation behind this.

I think that an invisible organization exists that has supporters in many Muslim countries, and most likely in India as well - rather like the Sinn Fein in Ireland. No government has shown support for terrorism, not even the Taliban; but obviously many individuals exist in Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that consider terrorism a viable option.

Iraq and Afghanistan are the most likely to get involved in any military action. Indonesia has pledged their aid for logistics and allowed the U.S. to use their airspace. Pakistan... haven't heard the latest on Pakistan yet. I think they're frightened by the prospect of armed Americans invading their country, and will say just about anything to keep that from happening.

Osama Bin Laden is the head of this monster, but by all the philosophies of Islam, he will consider himself ultimately expendable. At this point he's changing locations every 8 hours to avoid detection, but I'm wondering why he's bothering. If he's killed, five more are in line to take his place.

The most recent word from our beloved slack-jawed leader is that this war will be both covert and overt. Lotta spying going on. Many nations won't be willing to help with the covert operations. There is much information-gathering to be done, and this will take some time.

I no longer think that we'll be invading Afghanistan tomorrow - from what I've read, this would be disastrous for that country, and just the thing to destroy it utterly - not to mention killing many people who don't want the Taliban in their country in the first place.

Crossing every limb I possess...
- Lentilla

EtherZev: I've heard some stories about this. There was one guy that called in telling (some government organization) that bin Laden planned to target the world trade center towers. (This might be the guy in Germany you mentioned) Besides that, the government knew that there was a strike planned, but they didn't know where.

Reminds me of the stories behind the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Many historians now say that that attack was allowed, to galvanize the American people into getting in the war. I doubt that Bush had this in mind - it seems much more likely to me that the U.S. government just
f***** up.

- Lentilla

This is slightly at a tangent, but do these historians say how the US would have not allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor? Was there a big net across the Pacific that someone took down to let the planes through or did someone neglect to mark the Japanese declaration of war with "Return to sender"?

I think the implication is that Roosevelt had specific info that Pearl Harbor was the target, yet failed to make that clear to the local military commanders. This also set them up as scapegoats in the post-attack investigation.

I've heard that the ships that were destroyed at Pearl Harbor were manned with skeleton crews.

That's a slightly different issue: when something goes as badly as Pearl Harbor, or the recent attacks it's a virtual certainty that there's some negligence involved, whether it be of that of individuals or systemic, and historians make their living by constantly overturning the established perspectives.

The implication in Lentilla's post was that someone seriously argues that were it not for significant loss of life in the attack, Roosevelt would have been forced to send Hirohito a response saying America's wasn't in the mood for a war.

...

...to 'invade' Afghanistan...would be a big mistake when so much pressure can be applied er diplomatically to all concerned.

...we should move immediately to relieve human suffering in Afghanistan, even as a transparent attempt to win friends let's drop food first.

...i do think we should all go get saddam finally, tell him we were in the neighbourhood, fuel the aircraft carriers and then take him water-skiing.

alec.

Bush apparantly made a remark about the use of cruise missles this week. He was criticizing Clinton's indiscriminate use of them. He said something to the effect of " Why send a 2 million dollar missile to destroy a ten dollar tent that's probably empty?". I heard it on the tube, so who knows, but maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Some quick impressions after reading A LOT of posts ...

Whoever asked if the U.S. is willing to take more innocent lives to gain a sense of closure, seems to me to be spot on. This is THE issue, in my probably biased opinion.

Attacking Afghanistan is verging on the ridiculous ... attack what? (see my earlier post about the state of Afghanistan).

Going in and "surgically" removing bin Laden ... great idea, but if that was so easy, why has it not already been done?

The idea of the U.S. liberating the Afghans from the Taliban ... would that it were so easy. The Taliban is a horrendous regime to be sure. I doubt there are many in the world that would support it (I think it is only recognised by three governments). But, attacking the Taliban is likely to bring the extemists in other more moderate Islamic countries out of the woodwork (as is starting to occur in Pakistan). Is the U.S. prepared then to go on "liberating" other countries who fall to more extreme regimes?

As a related point ... who judges who the U.S. is to liberate? I'm sorry, but the idea of the U.S. as "global sherrif" strikes me as arrogant (I can't think of a nicer word for it). Certainly, save the Afghan's from the Taliban if that is possible. And while your at it, save most of the Iraqis from Saddam - he is clearly an oppressive dictator. But why stop there? Why not save the people of Bhurma from their regime? Their's is almost as bad as the Taliban. Why didn't the U.S. save the people of East Timor from the Indonesians? They are a people who have only finally been freed from terror after 25 years of abuse and murder? (And we in Australia bloody stood by as well and did nothing ... something I am very ashamed of).

I am ranting at this stage, I realise, and I realise that people who have been posting in support of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan have noble intentions. But, where does this stop? Almost anything must be better than risking another world war (and there are lots of people who think that this is a real possibility). And there are just so many ways that what begins as honourable can go badly off the rails.

So ... after all that, I guess I am admitting that I'm scared.

Warm regards to all taking part in the discussion.
Bran.

P.S. I am never usually this forthright in a post ... I must have eaten something off.

Nobody's denying that the issues and ramifications are complex, but that complexity does not justify inaction.

You may have been ranting, but you were coherent and polite. It may help that I agree with you of course.

Two Bit - I love reading your quotes (even though I disagree with most of them! :0D)

Americans - One of problems for even the most aware and intelligent of you is that you have no experience of just how bloody difficult it is to root out terrorists.

Think of your quiet unassuming neighbourhood serial killer. How difficult is it to work out who has been eviscerating young women and leaving their bodies in bin-bags, (or whatever)? That's right. Very difficult.

Ok - so take your quiet unassuming neighbourhood serial killer, and fund him. Oh yes - and do this before he comits a crime, so there is no DNA, no crime scene, no forensic evidence. Send him to a liberal western regime. Pay his bills on time. Encourage him to keep his head down.

Now how difficult is he to find? Hmmmm. Just about impossible.

So how many guys with arabic names are going to be reported to the police, for being shy, or being bad-tempered? - That's right. Loads of them.

Ok - take it abroad. Do a surgical strike. (A contradiction in terms if ever there was one, but that is by the by).

If we couldn't find the hostages in Beiruit, and we only had one city to search, then how the hell are we going to find terrorists in a country as large and as hostile as Afghanistan. Especially when they will probably be in Pakistan or Iraq, anyway.

For f**k's sake, dudes, wake up and smell the rocket-fuel.

a human-being called Ben

Ben, I think you're making too much of America's percieved naivete when it comes to dealing with terrorists. The average American citizen probably knows next to nothing on the subject, but then the same can be said of the average Briton too. If American agencies weren't too well-versed in domestic terrorism before, you can bet that the bombs in Atlanta, Oklahoma and the WTC brought them up to speed.

Give America some credit - we didn't all just fall off the turnip truck. GW Bush has said "Why send a $2M missle to blow up a $10 tent." I think we get it - that is why we plan on taking a long time- police actions, diplomacy, sanctions, and then and only then military incursions to capture or wipe out the cells. We will realign and mobilize appropriately and we need the whole worlds help. God help us all. Above all, none of us can afford to be paralyzed by caution like you express. We must pressure presure pressure or be terrorized terrorized terrorized.

What other nation or body would have a chance at succeeding?

This is a quick note, as I have to be in court in an hour.

Thanks, Ben, unfortunately, I'm running out of them. I've already repeated a bunch of them. Now that you have a whole thread dedicated to them, I'm going to have to go find some more if this conflict goes on much longer. I guess it's time to end it, I've run out of quips.

We have been paying attention to terrorism in this country for some time. I think we've been sort of assuming the next big attack would be chemical or biological. It's been of interest to me, and I've taken a really good course on Domestic Terrorism at university. In the National Guard, we were always watching these events. Our unit was nearly inactivated before they decided that they might want to keep a few more bomb squads around after OK City.

Even before that, we've watched and planned. We have a long but poorly publicized history with domestic terrorism. We haven't had a lot of it, but it's been there. It just hasn't been one group or one ideology like the IRA. We've had versions of the Posse Commitatis, and other tax protesters, FALN, and more right wing nuts than you can shake a stick at.

I got to fly.

To elaborate on Mycroft's post #656:

There has been some recent (this morning's radio report) consternation that the 9/11 hijackers didn't fit any of the existing 'suicidal terrorist' profiles. These guys had families, property, were older, etc. They were, in effect, invisible.

This will cause some changes in the 'profile updates', and will undoubtably - and regrettably - result in too many innocents being detained and questioned. How do we guard against the undermining of the US Constitution in such a crisis? 'Cause everyone knows that 'temoprary changes' and 'special circumstances permit' have a nasty way of becoming permanant...

Something else going on here in the states concerns me greatly: the US airline industry is currently asking the government for an immediate infusion of money, given the huge losses due to canceled flights and folks deciding against flying nowadays. This will, however - even if granted - not prevent the laying off of approximately 100,000 workers (rough total from several news stories), most of whom are in the Pacific Northwest - nowhere near NYC or DC.

The arms of Chaos are long.

What will 100,000 families do for income? The job market is already depressed, so it is unlikely that these folks will be back contributing to the economy again anytime soon. Will they all wind up on (brrrrrrr) welfare? Or will they find gainful employment in the munitions industry? Isn't that what makes wars 'good' - the stimulation of the economy? (Surely you've heard that the Cold War gave the world the technology for inventing the personal computer...)

And, lastly, the idea that there are/were additional targets in the US is borne out by an experience a soon-to-be in-law of mine had last week. This near-relative manages several large parking complexes in downtown Atlanta, and the company was notified by the FBI that #191 Peachtree Street - a big office building smack in the middle of downtown - was on a list of targets. The companies and employees working there are on notice that they might be next...

Now, this information was second-hand by the time I got it, so some inaccuracies may have crept in, and I don't want to alarm anyone unduly; but I mention it - and the plight of the airline workers - simply to remind us (hawk and dove alike) that the 'collateral damage' of war doesn't necessarily wind up in body bags. Stress kills, too. (Ask me about my angioplasty sometime, boys and girls.)

Glad to have this opportunity to cheer everyone up.

-7rob7, fresh out of bon mots at the moment

is anyone watching the congressional address, being broadcast now? i am so relieved... Bush doesn't seem to want to declare war on Pakistan, portraying the people as the victims, not the victimizors. just had to post this. so relieved. now going to go watch the rest of it.