 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Since 9/11 we had Bali, Riyahd, attacks in Tunis, Karachi, and now Baghdad.
. |
against a bar, a civilian housing complex, a synagogue, and a church. Versus attacks on a Military housing complex, 2 emabassies, and a destroyers. You do understand the difference between hard and soft targets, dont you?
As for including "now Baghdad" in this list, you are jumping the gun in assuming its al qaeeda.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
against a bar, a civilian housing complex, a synagogue, and a church. Versus attacks on a Military housing complex, 2 emabassies, and a destroyers. You do understand the difference between hard and soft targets, dont you? |
The two embassies were not that hard a target, anymore than the UN compound in Baghdad. I would assume, given the history of the US in SA that the housing complex was supposed to be protected. The difference between soft and hard matters little to those killed. In fact , hitting soft targets, ie every day tagets, makes more sense for a terrorist, if what you want to do is spread terror.
quote:
As for including "now Baghdad" in this list, you are jumping the gun in assuming its al qaeeda. |
It doesn;t matter if it was not Al qaeda: it is a terrorist attack under Bush's watch, in a place in which the Coolition has the responsiblity for security.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
one of the clear differences between Germany and Iraq
German Nazis persecuted Jews, communists, foreigners etc. An ex-Nazi in the western zones didnt have to fear foreigners (the occupying powers only executed a handul of top people and even imprisoned a relatively small number - most just had to look for new careers) didnt have to fear communists (all gone east) and didnt have to fear Jews (such as remained in Germany generally kept a low profile) for the most a low level ex_nazi, even SS, was NOT a deadended in post war Germany. In Iraq the Shiite and Kurdish majorities, and at least some portion of the sunni arabs, are clearly gunning for the fedayeen, secret police, etc. There is clearly NO future for these guys in any conceivable Iraqi endgame, whether pluralist or shiite fundamentalist, EXCEPT for a Baathist restoration.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
lord of the mark:
"he certainly thought of it, but didnt allow its absence to stop the US from acting."
He didn't give a flying **** about it.
"And its hardly too late - the world still has a chance to pull together."
Nobody wants a piece of your Iraq adventure. And after having blatantly violated international law and insulted about every nation that did not say "yeah great", it would take an amazing turnabout to get support.
"And even if it doesnt, we will still pull this out, with the assistance of the coalition of the willing, and, most importantly, the Iraqi people."
Wishful thinking. The real problems haven't even started.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999 time: 05:30
|
|
It certainly could be Al-Queda, but I would certainly not be surprised if it were not. Al-Queda has no love for Saddam. He is there ideaological enemy! That's why I didn't buy this whole crock of sh*t from the beginning about this having jack to do with the War on Terror.
Do you know that when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 that Osama bin Laden offered the Saudi government 30,000 seasoned Afghan troops to kick Saddam out? The Saudis told him to fvck off because they'd rather back the Americans, and to seal the deal, had him exiled. That was what pushed him over the edge in the first place.
I mean all this stuff about "them" as if they are all one big happy family out there is pure shyte. The 9/11 attacks were designed to inspire Muslim people to kick out leaders like Saddam... And on Saddam's part, he was not so stupid and self-destructive as to suddenly start hurling WMD our way... c'mon. Some of you believe far too many of the fairy tales coming out of the White House.
As for not having had a terrorist attack on US soil, A) It's been only two years... we went eight between the first WTC and the second. There was Oklahoma City, but that was one of our own home-grown nut jobs... and B) It has much more to do with security measures taken at home and the new-found zeal of the FBI in pursuing terrorists.
quote: Their time is done, much more advantageous to commit themselves to the new Iraq and make something out of themselves, now. |
Good, so we won't have to be there much longer, right? Fine... I'll be a lot happier when we get the hell out, and I'm sure they will too.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Flat out wrong, in case you havn't been keeping up with USA current events, "the real problems" began a quite a while ago."
I have no diea what you are talking about.
"If this country is hit again like 9/11, you will see what this country is really capable of."
We will see that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
The two embassies were not that hard a target, anymore than the UN compound in Baghdad. I would assume, given the history of the US in SA that the housing complex was supposed to be protected. The difference between soft and hard matters little to those killed. In fact , hitting soft targets, ie every day tagets, makes more sense for a terrorist, if what you want to do is spread terror.
It doesn;t matter if it was not Al qaeda: it is a terrorist attack under Bush's watch, in a place in which the Coolition has the responsiblity for security. |
re: hard and soft targets.
For some time Salafist terrorists attacked their local regimes - eg in Alegeria and Egypt - ultimately to "nought" Al qaeeda's distinctive strategy appears to
have been to attack the USA directly, and to pull off attacks against particularly hard to strike targets - thus to show the US a paper tiger, and to unite what had been a cowed Islamic world around them, and then to easily overthrow the local regimes that had proved impervious to strictly local attacks. Therefore the important things about the attacks on the embassies, khobar towers,and the cole was that they were on US targets, and well protected targets at that. The WTC was technically a civilian target, not military or govt target like the others, but it was so central to US commercial like, and taking it out was so difficult, so unlikely, and so dramatic that it certainly fit the strategy. Since then AQ has been reduced to attacks on bars, hotels, and places of worship. In the unlikely hope that they can bring down the Indonesian or Tunisian economies by taking out their tourist industries (Islamists tried this for years in Egypt, and it didnt work)
I'll admit the Saudi housing complex was more of a hard target than the others, but it was still less protected than the military housing, and the price has been that Saudis have finally come down hard on the local AQ cells.
Baghdad - well from what im hearing it was NOT well protected, the UN itself was not that security concious, not thinking themselves a target.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|