9/11: An open letter

To the tropers:

After whats been called the worse attack on he United States, we got our shit together, flew halfway across the world, and in a few months did what the Russians couldn't doing years of fighting. A few months ago, we found and killed the man who was responsible for planning the attack, and to date we've also captured/killed much of the senior leadership.

It's been 10 years to the day, and here we are; do you think we've accomplished what we set out do do? I've heard people say that "the terrorist have won", do you think so? Do you think we've gained anything from the sacrifices we've made since that day?

To the remnants of the Taliban, and AQ:

Fuck you. I never forgot, and sure as hell won't forgive. As for everyone else out there who has an issue with our way of life, the Baathists, Islamists, Wahhabis...whatever the fuck you're calling yourselves now; tick-tock motherfuckers. You're up next.

/Kino out

I do.

Afghanistan was probably fine by itself. (Although in the end we can't know for sure). But going into Iraq was basically responding to Bin Laden's declaration of "Jump!" with "How High, Sir?". In the end, instead of 9/11 being the event to open Islam's eyes and to ratchet it back, we see an increasing spread of domination-focused Islam.

TBH, yeah, you got him, but, according to the New York Times, the overall cost of the whole thing was 3.3 trillion dollars, while the whole WTC attack costs were probably under a million themselves. I'd call it a Pyhrric Victory at best, since if you got the one who killed 3000 of your civilians, you lost more than 6000 soldiers doing so, a lot of civil liberties, your moral high ground, a good chunk of your economy (the crisis we're all in at the moment is in no small part due to the "War On Terror") and made yourselves more enemies than all the Cold War policies ever got you.

So, ten years after, the conclusion I'd draw would be: terrorism is a very efficient way to strike at the U.S., since their reaction will destroy themselves, both internally and externally. Osama is dead, but look at the state of the U.S. now: he did more damage to your country than the Japan ever managed to do (lost lives excepted of course).

I dare somebody to test that theory out in 15 years when I'm elected President. I'll simply take the no-nonsense approach and start lobbing nukes. Let's see IED's and religious fervor stand up to the power of the H-bomb.

They won't last very long against somebody who will glass millions of people and not bat an eye over it.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:17:09 AM by MajorTom

That's the most vile thing I've read in my entire life.

And that country won't last very long to all of the other countries with nukes that find that you're a batshit insane man at the head of the country who doesn't actually have the power to do that nor would actually be in that position to begin with.

And they would just up the ante and use nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry against your cities, in the unlikely case you aren't yourself deposed by your own staff when you ask for the little suitcase. And don't think the U.S. could survive as a superpower blackmailing the world with nukes.

Or, if I want to take out, let's say, Spain, I'd make a terror attack look like it came from Spanish terrorists. You'd just be a tool for anyone with half a brain to use.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:21:50 AM by RufusShinra

^^^ Is it? Too bad the most evil of methods deliver the longest of results. You don't make peace by dillying around for 10 years on counter-insurgencies and light footed approaches. Instead you deliver maximum firepower to achieve peace in minimum time. Once you've shown who opposes you your iron heel and shown by action you are not to be fucked with, the other side will back down. It's worked on fanatical enemies too, take a look at Japan.

To achieve long lasting peace, one must do unspeakable things during war.

^^ The President of the United States is the top authority on nuclear weapons use. He has all the power to decide.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:22:03 AM by MajorTom

And they'll do it to you. Are you ready to trade New York and Los Angeles burning in a nuclear inferno for the satisfaction to have nuked another country?

^ You think the Russians will start a shooting match over us gallivanting against terrorists by nuclear fire? They aren't that dumb.

No, they'll assassinate you, with the help of the CIA, NSA, DGSE, MI 6, MOSSAD and every sane people on Earth. If your Secret Service doesn't understand quickly how dangerous a threat you are for your own country.

Oh, and to launch the nukes, the President cannot act alone. He/She needs a confirmation code from one of the top executives of the administration, unless it's a retaliatory strike after hostile nuke launch.

They're welcome to try. Assassination never gives the intended message.

We lost and the terrorists won. We lost because we spent trillions of dollars, drove our economy into the ground, and brought the country's fiscal solvency to the breaking point, caused by a 'get the terrorists at any cost' mentality and a large segment of the population that refuses to increase taxes as a shared sacrifice to pay for those wars (whereas every other war, without exception, led to tax increases to help offset the costs of the wars). The terrorists won because in our zeal to catch them at any cost, those in power sacrificed several of the tenets that make America great. We have sunk to the level of the terrorists through cold-blooded TORTURE of supposed 'enemy combatants' (And how I hate that legalese term) on a systemic level, and through implementation of the USA PATRIOT act and others that permit the government to spy on and infringe upon the rights of its own citizens, in blatant disregard to our ideals and the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We have allowed ourselves to be gripped by fear and in our hysteria, have undone much of the freedom for which we stand. Only when we allow ourselves to step out from behind the veil of fear, demand our rights back from a mentality of 'protect us at any cost' can we defeat this regime of terrorism.

"They who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:31:35 AM by DarkConfidant

Seconded, as you are more thorough than I was. But, on the other hand, it's quite understandable to overreact, since the U.S. never really knew any outside attack in their history. At least, at home. So you thought it was a life-or-death situation. Which... it wasn't.

This debate sounds like a plot of a B-Movie.

Major Tom: Omnicidal Maniac

Coming to DVD December 2012!

edited 11th Sep '11 7:32:52 AM by TotemicHero

^ Omnicidal? My boy, you vastly overestimate me. I will use as much firepower as is needed to achieve the goal, not an ounce more. Meaning if terrorism vanishes after a single nuclear strike, I will not strike any more.

You don't get it at all. The very fact that we would use nuclear weapons would give the terrorists a victory greater than any they could possibly imagine. You look at terrorism and see a military conflict that can be solved with military means. The only way to defeat the terrorists is to not give in to the base impulse to go all out and use any means necessary. We lose when we sacrifice who we are in the process, regardless of our military might.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:36:34 AM by DarkConfidant

^ Who said I'd sacrifice anything? I would not pull a Patriot Act or wiretaps or security checkpoints on this and that.

You know, it was meant to be a joke *

edited 11th Sep '11 7:38:46 AM by TotemicHero

@honorius: well, the ISAF stayed longer and sunk more money in the trap of a country, for once. And lost less people for the same utter and compleat defeat at the hand of AK-toting fighters. TBH, I think the only thing my country gained by being there was the good training we got for our troops and air forces, keeping them sharp at the relatively low cost of 74 deaths in 10 years.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:45:35 AM by RufusShinra

You're still not getting it. If America used nuclear weapons, that would make us a pariah on the global stage and demonize us on a global level. We would become the very Great Satan that Osama bin Laden claimed that we were. If we were to launch nuclear weaponry and kill millions of innocents in the process, then we are no better than bin Laden or any of his operatives. We would become the very terrorists that we swore to defeat. But it seems that your definition of victory is strength of arms and nothing more, so I can't possibly try to explain it to you.

edited 11th Sep '11 7:44:00 AM by DarkConfidant

@honorius: We executed a UW campaign. The Northern Alliance, along with SF/CIA help and precision air destroyed all major resistance in a few month; something that took the Soviets decades.

That's true, but it remains to be seen how long Afghan democracy will last after foreign withdrawal.

@Kino: invading the country and taking the major cities was an easy job. Find targets, bomb the hell out of them, do it again (even if some Tribe leaders played Command and Conquer with your B-52 by guiding them on rival tribes: "damn, Abdul is releasing is superpower, look out!") until noone shoots back. But NATO failed at the same point as the Russkies: occupying and pacifying the country. They were killed and pushed back by the fathers of those who still deny us any meaningful victory.