• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

US planning to attack taleban before WTC bombing

A number of countries are known to possess biological weaponry. Some types of biological attacks are very easy to instigate - the typhoid bacteria can be cultivated using basic equipment in your bathroom. Major "oh-f**k-me-I'm-dead" disease bacteria, like Anthrax, are admittedly a little more difficult to formulate and handle, but bear in mind that a teaspoon of anthrax spores, if distributed 'perfectly', has the potential to kill every person in the UK... five times over. Admittedly, this type of distribution is impossible, but the wiping out of a city would be relatively straightforwards.

Several terrorists arrested in the past 20/30 years have been found to be in possession of bioweapons, and not all from the Middle East. Although I'd tend to agree that we needn't start crapping our pants with horror just yet, it is worth considering that this type of warfare could well be a reality if only to get a better handle on the concept of terrorism as a whole.
 
Bio Weapon

I remember reading somewhere a plot to take out a police station by flying a remote control model plane laden with Anthrax through an upstairs window.

Wonder if that would have worked. Perhaps it didnt happen when the CIA decided to stop funding the terrorists in question.:blah:
 
Re: Bio Weapon

Chriswsm said:
...model plane laden with Anthrax ...
Click to expand...

What about a bin laden with anthrax?

bin Laden...?

Nah, forget it.
 
There's no "all of a sudden" to it. Ossama bin Laden had been indicted prior to September 11 for his attacks on the embassies in Africa. In fact, he is A-number-one on the FBI's most-wanted list.
 
To Spook, who wrote, "Even a cursory knowledge of military history and philosophy makes it apparent that, apart from having lots more ordnance than the other side, one of the most essential requirements of any army preparing for and engaging in war is clear war aims."

What is it exactly that is not clear in your mind everytime you see video footage of the Towers collapsing?
 
Quasar, you're not answering the question. The destruction of the WTC could be described as an act of war, much like the assassination of archduke ferdinand, and like in that case the instigators of the war are far from clear.

The war aims are still not clear, although in private, bush and blair want to oust the taleban. However they cannot admit this to the 'coalition against terrorism' as it would upset the arab countries that are going to be vital if al-qa'ida are to be uprooted. Many arab countries, whilst they may not approve of the methods of the Taleban in gaining power, see the 'ideal' of a truly islamic state when they see the taleban. Also, as the taliban are a military body now ruling a country by force, other regimes in the region (pakistan the most obvious) are nervous that if the US/UK can invade and destroy a military regime they don't like, they may be next (indonesia is also getting nervous as news last night will confirm).

This is a new type of war, and I feel as such it will fail. There is no military precedent for this, a guerilla war with parts of the opposing 'army' hidden in countries all over the world. If one thinks of the Anti-globalisation/g8 movement, with it's (at the moment) non-violent core, and it's ability to stage massive demonstrations that close down whole cities at a time, you have some idea of the power of underground movements.

It's rather like watching people playing the 'risk' boardgame, but with the rules having been changed. Whilst people are still throwing the dice, moving the troops, and invading countries, the pieces move themselves, or become part of the scenery...

All this gunboat diplomacy, armbending and concession giving (I mean, all of a sudden we're meant to forget/ change our minds about Putin and his savagery in Chechnya) will ultimately lead to more instability, greater resentment amongst the worlds repressed peoples, and the bolstering of more military regimes in the middle/far east.
 
"New" Kind of War?

In my previous posts, I have more or less TRIED to shy away from discussing/debating America's foreign policy, per se, but being incurably longwinded, I have to offer my two cents on the "lack of clear war aims", predictions of failure, etc.

First off, I think we are getting a bit far afield in worrying overmuch about "defining terrorism", "stating war aims", etc. To me, terrorism is much akin to pornography..you know it when you see it, but good luck trying to DEFINE it. And I think we pretty clearly saw it on the 11th...and saw it with the Cole, the embassies in Africa, the earlier WTC bombing, etc, etc, etc...

Basically, if we want to be honest... much of the West knew where the terrorists' training camps were... knew WHO a lot of the terrorists were... knew a lot about what nations harbored them... knew a lot about how their money flowed.... and so on...and chose to do relatively little about it. We could get into a LONG discussion about WHY that is, but to me, the bottom line was that the Arabic terrorists, at any rate, wisely chose to commit MOST of their acts of terror outside the West, and certainly outside the USA. And as long as they did..the West, and especially the USA, was tacitly willing to do little about all of the above knowledge,except for the occasional showy retaliation aimed at already deserted facilities. That is morally ugly and disturbing... and also a little bit pragmatic. Americans, especially, are loathe to act when "things" happen abroad..even terror aimed at Americans. I think terrorists were aware of this, and in general used this tendency to their advantage. September 11th changed this equation. The tacit bargain was broken. Arabic terrorists chose to bring the fight into Americans' homes.

So what are the "war aims" now? While it is not being stated this coldly, I think it is simply this... to create a world where the previous tacit agreement is rescinded. Basically, no more more or less open state sponsorship of terror attacks, no more blind-eye towards training camps, financial support, etc. The world is going to become a LOT less comfortable for terrorists. And, if (and this is a big if) American will does not expire after Afghanistan, nations are going to be more cautious about appearing to "allow" safe haven to terrorists.

There will still be terrorists, there will still be terror attacks, etc...so if you believe the aim is the ending of terrorism, then I would agree, there will be failure. But I don't think that can be an aim, any more than you can say your aim is to 'eliminate crime'. I think the real aim is to say that there will be no more pragmatic blind eye, no more tacit hope that if we do not aggressively hunt terrorists they will kill abroad (again, an ugly formulation, I know - since abroad simply means someone else's home). It is going to become a lot harder to be a terrorist and not end up either in jail, or very dead, and at a time and place NOT of YOUR choosing. And I think THAT is an achievable goal.

My real concern/question is a bit different... various pundits keep assuring us..telling us..that the Bin Laden flavor of Islam is a perversion, with no true deep support in the Muslim world. I acknowledge the former, but wonder about the latter... since these same pundits so quickly warn of the spread of violent anti-American sentiment and militancy if we act "too harshly". Hmmm.... last time I checked, marginal characters can rarely mobilize that kind of support. And when I take a good look at the pre-September 11th skyline..and look now...I have to wonder about the worldview of those defining "too harshly"...

Ah well...nothing very Fortean here. Apologies. Think I will go see if any black triangles have been buzzing any crop-fields, or if Nessie has reared her head of late...

Shadow
 
"Basically, if we want to be honest... much of the West knew where the terrorists' training camps were... knew WHO a lot of the terrorists were... knew a lot about what nations harbored them... knew a lot about how their money flowed.... and so on...and chose to do relatively little about it."

I guess the evangelical crusade will eventually get around to
bombing the bejasus out of the pockets of Irish-Americans whose
fundraising has kept the IRA in weapons for years.

Sorry, being naïve again. Back to the wingèd cats. :rolleyes:
 
James Whitehead said:
I guess the evangelical crusade will eventually get around to
bombing the bejasus out of the pockets of Irish-Americans whose
fundraising has kept the IRA in weapons for years.
Click to expand...

Now you're being silly. Of course we shouldn't bomb them.

We should lock the scum up, though.
 
Possible "Cue Bono"

I was reminded this morning that Afghanistan is the major source of Heroin in the world.

I then remembered that a certain American intelligence agency is alleged to have started the drugs trade (or at least used it) to fund their Black Ops.

What if the Taliban (or Bin Laden) was trying to use the Afgani's hold on the heroin trade to restrict said agency's black budget?

Knowing what we do about the methodologies of said agency it cannot be considered impossible that they would be capable of allowing, or even staging, the events of September 11th as an excuse to take direct control of their income at the source.

Of course you don't need me to say which agency this would be...

Niles
 
I guess the evangelical crusade will eventually get around to bombing the bejasus out of the pockets of Irish-Americans whose fundraising has kept the IRA in weapons for years.
Click to expand...

Lets hope so. Mind you they still have to lay sanctions on France for Nuclear weapons testing.:hmph:
 
French Terrorism

They can also get the French for Sinking the Greenpeace Ship Rainbow Warrior. After all, If it wasn't an act of Terrorism it must have been an act of WAR.

I don't have anything against the french except their attitude to foreigners, their manners and their Government.:devil:
 
Quasar said:
To Spook, who wrote, "Even a cursory knowledge of military history and philosophy makes it apparent that, apart from having lots more ordnance than the other side, one of the most essential requirements of any army preparing for and engaging in war is clear war aims."

What is it exactly that is not clear in your mind everytime you see video footage of the Towers collapsing?
Click to expand...

Sorry Quasar, but this is a non-sequitur and makes no sense at all. My point was that any war should have clear aims. The destruction of the WTC was a cause of war. To suggest that my mental response to footage of the WTC collapse, or yours for that matter, is a war aim is quite obviously total gibberish.
 
The Aims of the War

The aims of this war are clear -
1) the elimination of OBL and as many of his confederates as possible (what odds on "suicide" if OBL is captured by accident)
2) the replacement the Taliban government by people more amenable to the US and regional superpowers, no matter how corrupt or venal these replacements might be.
This takes us back to the US wanting a war. Now I dont say the US planned these strikes but two things were very convenient - the FBI lost track of prime suspects and that the part of the Pentagon actually struck was undergoing refurbishment and had very few staff.:monster:
Then consider this other remarkable event in the region this year. I quote the bits I find interesting but see the original at
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/journeys/nepal/

".....the leader of the Maoists (Baburam Bhattarai, who remains in
hiding) wrote an opinion piece for the Kirtipur, Nepal's largest
English-language daily. Along with a far-fetched theory - that the
killings were part of an Indian/CIA plot to take over Nepal - the
article took an interesting stand. It implored the Royal Nepal
Army to abandon the new king, and switch their allegiance to the
people of Nepal: creating, in effect, a true republic.

"This, along with many other questions, will continue to haunt the
Nepalese. How did a falling-down drunk prince shoot so many
people so accurately, with no resistance? Why was his body
cremated before an autopsy could be performed? Why did none of
the palace guard interfere? Why was Paras left unharmed? What
was the 'black substance' in Dipendra's cigarette?"

Hmm I must be getting paranoid in my old age
Intaglio
 
Re: The Aims of the War

intaglio said:
The aims of this war are clear
Click to expand...

They might be now but my original point about war aims was made on the 27th of September when everyone was getting a little gung-ho and didn't seem to care much for them. The above post was in response to Quasars comments regarding my original one.
 
Did anyone else hear this?

I swear I read somewhere that Bin Ladin had a kidney/liver problem that meant he had to have lots of water.

Surely he would need pills as well, so why don't the US end trading in medicine with the Taliban to kill Bin Ladin.

P.S. A friend said that peanut is poisonous to people to ppl with kidney problems, so the food packages were presumably deliberately dropped with Peanut butter to kill Bin Ladin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top