[JJoon077]

Another huge sign of Bush's incompetence (well, there are too many to list, but here a few more) is his telegraphing passes before a major war, i. e. warning Afghanistan that he was planning to invade before he did, even though the decision to attack was already made (i. e. not an either-or).

Consequently, the Taleban rebels had plenty of time to prepare for the battle.

Bush made the same blunder in Iraq.

Attacking Afghanistan w/insufficient forces was also a screwup.

As a result of these blunders, the Taleban successfully defeated the US and forced it into terms of surrender--the second time the US has conclusively lost a war.

[mynaflzak]

No, because terrorism isn't always targeted for political gain. There's no one single definition of "terrorism" that's agreed on, though...



My last several years in the Navy was spent working in the field...



Not my job...



Well, thank you for confirming that which I've always suspected you lack...



You don't think that selling them weapons is wrong?



Your insight is fucking astounding...



Not true, and that statement shows your lack of understanding of how terrorist cells operate, and how they're organized...



The skills? Yeah, he did. He wouldn't have been able to do it, however, because of his notoriety. He was a wanted man before 9/11. He didn't do it because he's at the top of the Al Qaeda food chain...



People often doubt things they have no knowledge of...



Hardly. There's a never-ending line of people waiting to serve Allah...



They pick those who ideologically opposed to the United States and what it stands for. Some may be retards. Some have been college graduates.

People who engage in terrorism against random civilians, either directly/indirectly as part of an armed force (US forces) or as a guerilla combatant, are typically dumb, because in general, violence against random civilians, including "collateral damage", does nothing more than provoke retaliation--

and only a idiot would fail to see that. And the US has done more than its share of "collateral damage."

[GinaIsWild]

People who engage in terrorism against random civilians, either directly/indirectly as part of an armed force (US forces) or as a guerilla combatant, are typically dumb, because in general, violence against random civilians, including "collateral damage", does nothing more than provoke retaliation--

and only a idiot would fail to see that. And the US has done more than its share of "collateral damage."

Solletica, I don't believe it's possible for your opinion to be any less worthy of consideration than it already is...

[carfAball]

The first thing I would have done is fire the heads of the CIA and FBI. If you can't play well with others then you have no business in this position.

While a full and complete investigation was taking place I would begin the work to seal our borders including tasking the Corps of Engineers to begin construction of unscalable walls and electrified fences. No one would be able to enter the US without proper documentation again. (Hey this would have helped reduce the illegal immigration population too!). INS would have to begin immediatly coordinating with state and local police to start rounding up anyone here in the US illegally and those people would be imprisoned until deported.

Begin working immediately to make the USA energy independent using all forms of technology available to us. Relying on Arab countries for a necessary staple in our economy is just stupid.

Spec Ops would be secretly deployed to begin assassinating all key members of AQ, including bin Laden, and anyone else who was involved in the attacks on us.

All aid to foreign countries who celebrated the attacks on us would be immediately terminated. You hate us? Fine, you don't need our help then.

Countries that are not our allies would be charged for services provided from the USA. Our military ain't free you know.

Don't care if you don't like the way I would have done it or not, bur our friends would still be our friends and we wouldn't have gone to Iraq, so how many lives have I saved between our military casualties and the number of civilians that have been killed?

[shinesw]

It is 9/12/01, one day after the attacks, and you are POTUS. What would you do? What would you say?

The Soviets used to kill all the family members of terrorists who committed acts against them. Blow up some Russians and your whole family dies. Your hometown is seiged. Walk softly, carry a big stick sort of thing.

Terrorist attacks should not go unaddressed.
The retailiation against a terrorist attack should set an example that future attacks are not tolerated and will be met with an overwhelming response.

[Unrersvar]

The Soviets used to kill all the family members of terrorists who committed acts against them. Blow up some Russians and your whole family dies. Your hometown is seiged. Walk softly, carry a big stick sort of thing.

Terrorist attacks should not go unaddressed.
The retailiation against a terrorist attack should set an example that future attacks are not tolerated and will be met with an overwhelming response.

Fighting terrorism with terrorism? Maybe effective, but what about the fact that you're confronted with the choice between (1) being able to claim no moral high ground or (2) spending a lot of money on misleading propaganda in order to be able to claim moral high ground?

[exchpaypalgold]

First, I think you need to accept that the terrorist always has the advantage, and no amount of preparation can defend you from terrorist attacks. Because a terrorist chooses the time and place and method of the attack, after you have put all your defenses in place, and since you can't defend everything, the terrorist will always have targets.
And unlike conventional conflict, the terrorist has no need for sustained effort, a terrorist can expend everything on an effort, and afterward when everyone is searching high and low to root him out, he's got nothing left to hide except the very bare bones of the organization, which only has to avoid destruction, wait, and rebuild when the time is right.

Jets and tanks and rifle companies aren't very useful when you are fighting shadows.
Those things need to be focused on real targets that have mass and inertia, and can't get out of the way.
And when you attempt to use that type of asset, it creates smoke and confusion, which are the very things that the terrorist thrives on, because the main power of the terrorist is that he's not really there, he has no headquarters, no capital, no main base, nothing to lock on and destroy.
When the public demands action, it plays into the terrorist's hands, because it covers his escape, and creates the conditions that feed him with recruits. Better to let the terrorist feel secure enough to show himself, let him feel that he has won, that his great enemy is completely helpless, so that he comes out and shows himself, and by doing so, becomes vulnerable to those weapons that you actually possess.

[shieclulaweew]

The Soviets used to kill all the family members of terrorists who committed acts against them. Blow up some Russians and your whole family dies. Your hometown is seiged. Walk softly, carry a big stick sort of thing.

Terrorist attacks should not go unaddressed.
The retailiation against a terrorist attack should set an example that future attacks are not tolerated and will be met with an overwhelming response.

Fighting terrorism with terrorism? Maybe effective, but what about the fact that you're confronted with the choice between (1) being able to claim no moral high ground or (2) spending a lot of money on misleading propaganda in order to be able to claim moral high ground?

Thats exactly the point I was making. What is the difference when the US applies terrorism tactics to fight terrorism. Some here dont believe the US has killed civilians at all. They deny that they support Israel who punishes the whole family of a Hamas fighter after an attack. Heck they punished the whole of Gaza. They finance this state of terrorism.

So the US cannot claim the moral high ground. They pissed on it and pissed on UN Resolutions and told the UN to ef off when they confronted them about Iraq War ... they told International Law to ef off when it came to Guanatano Bay and the rest of the secret CIA prisons around the world.

Whats the friggin difference? The US killed and continues to kill civilians in both wars to show its "working hard on this war against terror"... where infact its a WAR OF TERROR. It calls it "collateral damage" and "we will conduct investigation".

Alot of views here are pro all of this,...alot here have said they are in support of a strong response..... a hard stick approach.... etc.

But its also good to see that alot have suggested they wouldnt go to war in Iraq and would have handled Afghanistan differently. Its good to see intelligent American minds at work.

WS.

[sessoorale]

I'm rather tired of the back-and-forth "The US is a terrorist state!" "No, you kill innocents!" "No, you do!" So lets take a step back and set up a hypothetical, shall we?

It is 9/12/01, one day after the attacks, and you are POTUS. What would you do? What would you say? What would be your long-term plan, assuming you have 7 more years to be president?

This question is particularly meant for those living outside the US, but anyone can respond.


What would you, as POTUS, have done on 9/12/01?

i would have declined to view this as a civilizational conflict, as the american right could not help but do.

i would have declined to globalize the issue and use this false platform as a war mongering tool. (it was 19 men, many of which were from an 'ally' state)

i would have only authorized the use of force to capture the radicals in afganistan responsible. there would have been no nation building efforts.

all of these actions would anger the terrorists responsible. They wanted exactly what bush and his pals did.

[OShellszz]

Terrorist attacks should not go unaddressed.
The retailiation against a terrorist attack should set an example that future attacks are not tolerated and will be met with an overwhelming response.

what if the intention of the terrorist attack was to draw the opponent into your territory in its clumsy conventional sense so you can further legitimize your propoganda against them?

do you respond in the exact way they wanted you to?

[asivisepo]

The first thing I would have done is fire the heads of the CIA and FBI. If you can't play well with others then you have no business in this position.

While a full and complete investigation was taking place I would begin the work to seal our borders including tasking the Corps of Engineers to begin construction of unscalable walls and electrified fences. No one would be able to enter the US without proper documentation again. (Hey this would have helped reduce the illegal immigration population too!). INS would have to begin immediatly coordinating with state and local police to start rounding up anyone here in the US illegally and those people would be imprisoned until deported.

Begin working immediately to make the USA energy independent using all forms of technology available to us. Relying on Arab countries for a necessary staple in our economy is just stupid.

Spec Ops would be secretly deployed to begin assassinating all key members of AQ, including bin Laden, and anyone else who was involved in the attacks on us.

All aid to foreign countries who celebrated the attacks on us would be immediately terminated. You hate us? Fine, you don't need our help then.

Countries that are not our allies would be charged for services provided from the USA. Our military ain't free you know.

Don't care if you don't like the way I would have done it or not, bur our friends would still be our friends and we wouldn't have gone to Iraq, so how many lives have I saved between our military casualties and the number of civilians that have been killed?

Good post.

I can't believe I forgot to mention securing our borders.

That's what happens sometimes when you post in the wee morning hours.

How can there be a war on terror when a million people a year enter this country illegally?

It is like the chewbacca defense. It doesn't make sense.

YEAH, WE ARE AT WAR, BUT OUR BORDER SECURITY IS A PATHETIC JOKE?

HUH?

Why is it that so few Americans understand that our border security, or lack thereof, proves that the war on terror is a scam?

How can people be so devoid of common sense to not understand such a simple concept?

Oh well, just more proof the American people are brainwashed morons.

[acissombiapse]

I'm rather tired of the back-and-forth "The US is a terrorist state!" "No, you kill innocents!" "No, you do!" So lets take a step back and set up a hypothetical, shall we?

It is 9/12/01, one day after the attacks, and you are POTUS. What would you do? What would you say? What would be your long-term plan, assuming you have 7 more years to be president?

This question is particularly meant for those living outside the US, but anyone can respond.


What would you, as POTUS, have done on 9/12/01?

Ill play devils advocate. I would remove all US military and govt funded support from the middle east and other islamic lands. THis is primarily what AQ wants. In the long run, I have no clue what this would do. Most likely allow them to overthrow more democratic countries into total theocracies and all the human rights abuses that come with it. We would also lose any ability to trade competitively, and might be cut off from oil alltogether depending on whether the new rulers allowed selling oil to infidels. It would probably not be safe for americans to travel to these countries.

We might be safe here at home, everyone else would not be. Its hard to tell whethe they would take our retreat as a sign for them to stay in their lands, or bolster them to expand their control.

[WaysletlyLene]

Another huge sign of Bush's incompetence (well, there are too many to list, but here a few more) is his telegraphing passes before a major war, i. e. warning Afghanistan that he was planning to invade before he did, even though the decision to attack was already made (i. e. not an either-or).

Consequently, the Taleban rebels had plenty of time to prepare for the battle.

Bush made the same blunder in Iraq.

Attacking Afghanistan w/insufficient forces was also a screwup.

As a result of these blunders, the Taleban successfully defeated the US and forced it into terms of surrender--the second time the US has conclusively lost a war.

When did this happen? I have seen no terms of surrender.

[yqpY4iw6]

And to support my position, here is what AQ wants. If you want to take the position that we are in the wrong and brought this on ourselves you have to address this.

Text of World Islamic Front's Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it

[hotsaucemidl]

I would have done largely what we did, with one important exception, I would not go to war in Iraq later.

Noone in the world tried to say the war in Afghanistan was unjustified, we had the moral high ground and the world's support, even most of the ME nations approved, or at least didn't actively protest. We had defeated the Taliban rather handily and had almost caught bin Laden when Chimp boy decided that nobody was gonna diss his daddy.

I wouldn't do all the Patriot act crap, but I would spend some of the money we've sent to Iraq on securing our borders against terrorist attack. At the very least I would Xray ALL containers, like the entire world, except for us, does.

I would also spend the rest of he money we've sent to Iraq on energy independene, and I would put economic/diplomatic pressure on countries like Saudi to liberalize their govts/cultures or face losing our trade eventually.

[petrarkaponye]

When did this happen? I have seen no terms of surrender.

Most everyone knows that this didn't happen and that solletica just loves to post shit he/she knows absolutely nothing about. I've tried to inform him/her that doing this stuff only reinforces what we already know....that he/she is totally ignorant.

[amelveEnromma]

Good post.

I can't believe I forgot to mention securing our borders.

That's what happens sometimes when you post in the wee morning hours.

How can there be a war on terror when a million people a year enter this country illegally?

It is like the chewbacca defense. It doesn't make sense.

YEAH, WE ARE AT WAR, BUT OUR BORDER SECURITY IS A PATHETIC JOKE?

HUH?

Why is it that so few Americans understand that our border security, or lack thereof, proves that the war on terror is a scam?

How can people be so devoid of common sense to not understand such a simple concept?

Oh well, just more proof the American people are brainwashed morons.

Dude, just use your Power Cosmic to save us.

[tLO0hFNy]

No, because terrorism isn't always targeted for political gain. There's no one single definition of "terrorism" that's agreed on, though...

So you don't think that 9/11 had any political goals? You feel it was just a flashy way of committing suicide, perhaps?
My last several years in the Navy was spent working in the field...
What field/position? And WHAT knowledge did you gain?
Not my job...


Well, thank you for confirming that which I've always suspected you lack...

And what's that? I didn't say instead of balls, I said instead of JUST balls. Having one does not mean you don't have the other.
You don't think that selling them weapons is wrong?
Maybe it's not the height of morality, but hardly bad enough to warrant hunting them down and taking our revenge out on them for 9/11.
Your insight is fucking astounding...



Not true, and that statement shows your lack of understanding of how terrorist cells operate, and how they're organized...



The skills? Yeah, he did. He wouldn't have been able to do it, however, because of his notoriety. He was a wanted man before 9/11. He didn't do it because he's at the top of the Al Qaeda food chain...

People often doubt things they have no knowledge of...
So if bin Laden did not have the notoriety you speak of, you feel he would be able to do it now? The same sort of multi-plane attack?
Hardly. There's a never-ending line of people waiting to serve Allah...
So you feel the average retard with a death wish can perpetrate 9/11?
They pick those who ideologically opposed to the United States and what it stands for. Some may be retards. Some have been college graduates. The latter are people who attacked on 9/11, the former are those who are blowing up now thanks to ease with which it can now be done (thanks to Bush). Do you feel that retards could have carried out 9/11? The bottom line is that, once again, you argue from a position of ignorance, and little more. One of these days, you'll find yourself forced to admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. This may not be that day, but it should be...

[bUqLfXRI]

Dude, just use your Power Cosmic to save us.

*frowns*

matey, norrin radd has no superpowers...he be "pre silver surfer".

he's just an ordinary sailor, like you and me.

aye.

-MeadHallPirate

[AlistDakisa]

Dude, just use your Power Cosmic to save us.

Mead Hall pirate isn't as dumb as I thought.