9/11: An open letter

Maybe they thought: "Crap, we got to take the G-man by ourself quick before the U.S. come and "help us", which would do way more damage than any dictator can do!"

edited 11th Sep '11 8:39:09 AM by RufusShinra

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

@Erock: They don't think like that.

Because we'd totally strafe the with gunships, shoot at hospitals and have our snipers target civilians.

edited 11th Sep '11 8:36:51 AM by Kino

Unfortunately.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

The quote below represents my attitude to the over hype that felt that security should be set at cost of liberty.

"Anyone who gives away a little libery for a bit of securit deserves neither and loses both."

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

Benjamin Franklin was quite a cunning man.

Too and America abondoned it's good repuation after Esienhower and JFK. Ben had worked hard for it.

edited 11th Sep '11 8:39:10 AM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Pft. The true genius of Benny is he was so suave he could get hot French honeys in his elderly years simply by going "hey baby, I'm a diplomat. >:D "

Well, you had quite the good rep' during the Nineties (at least, as far as I knew where I was), but you really lost it, not with the Afghanistan but with Iraq (obvious lies to attack another country tend to do that), and are slowly regaining it (mainly because of Obama).

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

Hey hey, not me.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

^_^; Sorry. By "you", I meant "the U.S."

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

On Iraq,I think it was more than oil but it should have been handled better.Heck,Bush in mind never wanted to be a wartime president.If he did he would have been better prepared and trained.I don't believe he made the right decisions but if there is a new threat in the world what would have you done.

@OP:

I find it somehow sadly remarkable, in a disturbing yet fascinating way, how the same methods of propaganda work in every country, for every government, with only slightly different words.

Maybe you want to check who you are actually referring to when you so generously use the words "we" and "us" and "them". Are you really identifying with all those people?

Maybe you want to check whether what's under attack is really "our way of life". Maybe you want to check what people use that phrase, and what they might try to accomplish by using it. You might even want to read up on the history of that one specific phrase.

Maybe you want to check what phrases are used, for example, in europe, to achieve the same results, and how this relates to the american slogans?

Maybe you might want to check how those "attackers" see things, and - however misguided and brutal they might be - whether there might not be something to their point of view as well.

Pretty much.

No. Both sides have had certainly had their victories, but I think the ultimate win condition is something more ambitious than just a bunch of dead soldiers, a recession, and an erosion of civil liberties. The war is far from over.

I don't know if there's been a net gain. I get the impression that we're worse off than we were before 9/11, and so are the terrorists.

I'm just going to make a few points and have my peace:

• A terrorist's main goal is to incite fear within a populace. By enacting an attack on US soil in the name of a religion, Al-Qaeda has succeed in striking fear in Americans and the worst manifestations have been anti-Islamic and anti-Middle Eastern sentiments. Years of discrimination and prejudice has spawned a generation of discontent and angry minority youths turning to terrorism. Homegrown Islam-terrorist cells, the Underwear Bomber, and the Times Square Bomber? All in Al-Qaeda's plan in requiting soldiers to wage war from within. An Xanatos Gambit so evil it makes Xanatos himself grab the razors and draw the hot bath. Yes, the terrorists won.
• The war in Afghanistan was justified in engaging the perpetrators of this attack. Iraq was not. What makes these current conflicts different than Vietnam? All-volunteer army, that's why. You want the war to end? Make recruitment less popular. How to do that? Make the benefits that the GI Bill provides available to the masses: substantial college funding, easier and stable housing funding, and health insurance. But since "Fuck the poor!" is the new domestic policy, the war machine's gears will keep grinding. So instead of protesting the war, protest high tuition.
• No tragedy is too great for people to take advantage of it. Westboro Baptist, Revolution Muslims, the Republican Party, and profiteers: all have committed high treason.
• To believe that 9/11 was a False Flag Operation, you have to accept that our government is that competent. Like. Fuck. It. Is. Apathy, denial, and hubris is what got us into this not a secret cabal of opportunistic politicians and contractors (that came after). Any number of things could've gone wrong: the flights could've been cancelled, the perpetrators could've gotten sick, or late, or gotten in a fight with some asshole just because they were two shades darker than paper and not speaking English. There's a big difference between building a house in a fire-prone area like the mountains here in CA and lighting the damn house yourself, and we were in the former. We should learn from our mistakes and build our house away instead of pointing fingers on who lit the goddamn match.

In closing, I'd just like to say God Bless America and death to our enemies. Peace upon those who sacrificed and lost those in the tragedy, and to the opportunists and instigators:

I sleep a little easier every night knowing there's always a deeper pit in hell reserved for a worse person. Rest assured: there's a very special spot in the 9th circle reserved for all of you

edited 11th Sep '11 10:53:00 AM by EnglishMajor

With blood and rage of crimson red ripped from a corpse so freshly dead together with our hellish hate we'll burn you all that is your fate

Kino, the Soviet invasion in December 1979 took over the Afghan government and the cities. When the tribal leaders tried to fight back in Spring 1980 with their large lashkar militia armies, they were easy targets for Soviet artillery and air power. After those defeats, they pretty much joined the Mujahideen (who were already fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan) and turned to guerrilla warfare—pretty much the same thing that the Taliban resorted to when they were kicked out of power in 2001.

Semi-Thread hop. Why would the POTUS be Assassinated and/or nuked at for talking a legitimate military action against an attack? The only nations that would be able to do shit anyway are the Nuclear Powers, and we're already so allied with them that any target we would nuke would probably be on their hit list to. Most likely they’d spout some political BS about how evil we are, but secretly be glad they have a Token Evil Teammate to play Big Damn Villain by wiping out the guys they wanted dead, without having to deal with Political Fallout. Nukes work; well. It's why the current militray-politcal structure works on it. We didn’t use them here, because as AQ was a Criminal organization we couldn’t legitimately declare a nuclear attack on a state like we did with Japan.

Let's make a TCG!

U.S. allies could like the Token Evil Teammate thing, but they'd probably be more afraid of the madman willing to nuke a country because of a mere 3000 deaths (and, yes, I say and repeat mere because it's not that many, compared to what almost every single country in the world took during their histories). If he/she send the nukes flying for that, what next? Nuclear blackmail? The political fallout would be astronomical, and you can be sure the highests-up in the U.S. will also know it. The easiest way to deal with it would be to arrest the POTUS and try him/her for crimes against mankind. And if there's a chance the U.S. people would side with him/her regardless of the consequences, well, let's say the POTUS... "resisted arrest", as they say in the movies.

And that's considering the POTUS isn't knocked down by some Secretary or the VP when looking like he/she's going to really do it. Or that the military will obey. Etc. A lot of things can stop the launch, when you're not talking about a hostile nuclear launch going your way. After all, the U.S. have an official "No First Strike" policy.....

edited 11th Sep '11 2:07:56 PM by RufusShinra

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

The world already RUNS on Nuclear Blackmail, it wouldn’t mean anything new. Knowing that a nation is willing to straight Glass another country that attacks it would be a GREAT discouragement to an attack. So great that it's specifically the only reason why the US wasn’t attacked by any State SINCE the 9/11 incidents. We're pretty much debating on what already happened sixty years ago. Tom's fallacy is that she is conflating States With Organizations which don’t function on the same parameters; but aside from that her logic is sound and proven to be effective. Nuclear Strikes are hardly "crimes against mankind" It's because of this BS media that's conflated pushing the big red button with some psychopathic Dr Strangelove than the actual legitimate military action that it was put there for a reason.

edited 11th Sep '11 2:25:46 PM by JusticeMan

Let's make a TCG!

The world runs on Nuclear Blackmail, true, but there's a Godzilla Threshold before the Nuclear Option. The 9/11 attacks did NOT cross that limit, and a country owning thousands of nukes being led by a leader willing to send nukes for that would be really, really scary. It'd look closer to the book series "The Big One", where the first, only and last answer from the U.S. to anything is nukes. In that case, you can be sure that it will NOT end well.

Break the taboo, and you can be sure that sooner or later, some device will ignite over a U.S. city and that nuclear umbrella policies will be generalized quite quickly for all the countries unable to get a nuke themselves.

During the next month, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead and buried, at least a dozen nuke program begins in earnest, as plans are bought from Pakistan and North Korea in multi-billion dollar deals, and the new nuke powers won't have as secured arsenals as the others, PAL won't be everywhere, etc. During the next year, the world will be divided in as many powerblocks as there are nuke powers, with NATO-like alliances.

Then someone, somewhere, will probably get his or her hands on a nuke and ignite it in the U.S. Retaliation, counter-retaliation...

The Nuclear Option is the very latest thing you want to envision. Everything else is better. Everything.

edited 11th Sep '11 2:33:56 PM by RufusShinra

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

Bull, using a nuke won’t cause such a mass upheaval, in fact it's probably STRENGTHEN what we already have on our nuke control. Out of the 7 non US nations with the capability to retaliate NONE would do so because we are already so aligned with them that they'd send the world in WWIII out of some pseudo-liberal bleeding heart ego fix. They'd talk some talk and keep trading like normal; people would burn flags, break out the tie-dies and the world would still go on; ten years later we'd be having a tennis game honoring the dead while absolutely no consequences of that magnitude occur, or will occur,.

For that kind of full-out MILITARY REVOLUTION to occur, you'd need an event on the magnitude of WWII, The Discovery of the new World or an Alien Invasion. Simply using a Nuke would certainly stir the waters; but it wouldn’t tip over the cup.

Let's make a TCG!

There is a taboo, and if you break it for such a small reason, noone will feel safe. The nuke powers will not fire on you, but the thinking will be the following:

"If some moron from my country hurts them, I will be nuked. So I need an insurance to prevent that from happening. Well, what's the best insurance against nuclear attack? I know, I need my own nukes!"

And do you honestly think the world will be safer if, suddenly, dozens of counties, especially dictatorships, actively start nuke programs? Or are you going to Nuke 'em as well? Most probably, some wannabe terrorist will manage to steal one of them, and will use it, and I'd bet NY or LA (or both) would be the new parking lots of the U.S. after that. Then you'll find where did the nuke come from (with the radioisotopes left after the ignition), retaliate against this country, which will send their last devices.

Oh, and, do you know the funniest here? Since you have Aegis and some Missile Defence, those new nuke powers won't spend billions to make ICBM and SLBM with enough stealth to pass through your defenses. No, they'll probably make nukes designed to be smuggled across your borders or in trade ships, since that'd be the only reliable way to strike the U.S. without Trident, M-51 or SS-18. The terrorist will leave a "Thank you" note for that.

NEVER, EVER give the world the feeling they aren't safe from your arsenal. As long as everyone is sure that non-nuclear powers will NOT receive a nuke in their face, they won't build them. If you remove that tiny consolation prize, the race is on, and the doomsday clock will ring loudly.

edited 11th Sep '11 2:47:59 PM by RufusShinra

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

If the US used nukes at this point, would retaliation actually need to take the form of violence? I'm wondering about economic sanctions in particular.

A nuclear response to 9/11, although comforting in theory, becomes much less of a good idea as you think about it.

On the other hand, Afghanistan probably would have went better if we'd told the Pakistanis to fuck off and secured the area ourselves...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yep, close the borders (minefields, razor wires, drones programmed to shoot and kill any thermal signature moving in their field of view), then clean the country methodically. Surround an area with overwhelming firepower (noone in, noone out), demand that every weapon be surrendered, then do one clean sweep with infantry (nice, smiling, but thorough) to find everything. It may take two weeks per zone, but you have the manpower to do at least a dozen or more zones at the same time. Then you seal the zone, move to the neighbouring one, and resume. Cleared zones can only be opened to other cleaned zones. "Closed" borders between zones would be submitted to the same treatment as the AFPAK border, with half a dozen heavily armed checkpoints. It would be a heavier version of what we did in Algeria to destroy the rebels (too bad we lost the homefront, but, militarly speaking, it worked).

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

Threeeead hop! Blimey it's off topic.

I don't like throwing volleys of criticism but, hey, here goes. In a decent-sized country the operation you're describing will cost multiple billions of dollars per day. Feeding, policing and providing medical attention to a city under such a total curfew will be almost impossible if you want to be sure no-one's sneaking through the lines. If botched, your operation could kill hundreds of people a day.

People will just bury their guns or move them elsewhere. They will dismantle their IE Ds so they look innocuous. Citizens will not tell you, an invading army, who the terrorists are or they will settle personal rivalries by making you go after innocent parties. Actual militants look the same as anyone else.

You would need hundreds of thousands of troops, maybe per city or else suspects would just find ways through. You will leave behind a population that feels utterly humiliated, violated and loathing of you, and once trade routes are re-established and the troops have left they'll be checking out gun prices again.

And what if a bunch of starving villagers, unable to feed because the trade routes have been blocked, tries to get through your minefields because the alternative is they starve? What if a group of children stray into the danger zone?

OK for big barriers to prevent children from getting into the danger zones. But, for the rest, isn't that the state the Afghan population has been left by ISAF and rebel warfare? You're living peacefully in your little village, herding goats to feed your family, your loving wife ('cause, whatever Fox can pretend, Afghanis aren't Complete Monster raping their wives every time, even if some are) and your children who're back in your home. Then, you hear a loud explosion, and when you come back, you see your house turned into a crater by a hellfire or a paveway because some soldier made a mistake guiding the airstrike. And that happens quite frequently, collateral damage killing half a dozen civilians a time.

As for the sinkhole, well, let's say the current strategy isn't cheap either. Or effective.

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.