The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 So by thinking it's an inside job you lose all credibility on this discussion. Why?
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Why? You're serious right? If you think that was an inside job you're a whacko. I don't discuss things with whackos.
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 You're serious right? If you think that was an inside job you're a whacko. I don't discuss things with whackos. Well then I guess Michael Ruppert one of the highest ranked, most well respected men in the history of the LAPD is a whacko. Read his book, make your own assumptions and then call me a whacko. please. Crossing the Rubicon Can give me one, just one, coherent, tangible reason why there is no way, no possible scenario which allows for US involvement/negligence to 9/11?
RI Bills Fan Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 You're serious right? If you think that was an inside job you're a whacko. I don't discuss things with whackos. Okay, then discuss my reply to your question... No, and if you give the idea just a few minutes of open minded consideration you'll agree. Who are Al-Queida? Do they wear a uniform so you know who they are? Do they carry terrorist id cards? Are they all in Iraq or for that matter even all in the Middle East? Do they have a central command, or even a military command structure? Are they organized into squads, platoons, companies and battalions? Can you pin them down and keep them contained in a neighborhood, a city, or a country? If the answer to any of the above questions is a resounding no (in your mind) then the idiocy of the idea that we kept them too buzy over there, to attack us over here, should be clear. TMCM(SS/SW) USN Ret. Chef, it only took 19 men armed with box-cutters to pull off 9/11. Less than a platoon. There are a lot of reasons why there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11, but the war in Iraq isn't one of them.
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 Okay, then discuss my reply to your question... I'd rather hear why his expertise on theories both plausible and "whacko" trumps that of a professor whose life has been devoted to these sorts of pursuits, and also that of someone who once worked very closely with the CIA. No, really, I had no idea the Chef had information these men don't.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Maybe we went there to draw them to our military and keep them occupied. Haven't seen too many of them attacking buildings in the US since we've been there. Couldn't we have kept them occupied in Afghanistan? You know, where Al Qaeda actually was/is.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Okay, then discuss my reply to your question... It takes great organization to pull of major terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11. Their main command is in the middle east and they do have a central command and military command structure how could they have gotten as organized as they did without it. When we went into Iraq we disorganized them to the point where it may be difficult for them to pull off another attack. Couple that with the increased security here in the US and, in my mind, that's why they have not done anything since. I'm not sure how the fact that they don't wear a uniform or carry ID cards has anything do with my point.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Couldn't we have kept them occupied in Afghanistan? You know, where Al Qaeda actually was/is. Sure, what's your point?
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 It takes great organization to pull of major terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11. Their main command is in the middle east and they do have a central command and military command structure how could they have gotten as organized as they did without it. When we went into Iraq we disorganized them to the point where it may be difficult for them to pull off another attack. Couple that with the increased security here in the US and, in my mind, that's why they have not done anything since. I'm not sure how the fact that they don't wear a uniform or carry ID cards has anything do with my point. Link? At least when I throw out crazy claims, I show you actual pieces of acadamia which support it. Please do the same, because this is news to me.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Sure, what's your point? Then why would we need to invade Iraq as well?
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Then why would we need to invade Iraq as well? Afghanistan would have worked just as well. Any place that would have drawn Al Qaeda out.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Link? At least when I throw out crazy claims, I show you actual pieces of acadamia which support it. Please do the same, because this is news to me. Link As part of the top-down approach, bin Laden is regarded as al-Qaeda’s emir-general. The emir-general provides spiritual guidance as well as strategic and operational oversight and is the preeminent leader of the movement, the most highly respected figure in al-Qaeda. As emir-general, bin Laden outlines al-Qaeda’s objectives and issues orders to ensure their implementation. A majlis al-shura (consultative council) addresses important policy and strategy issues, approving fatwas and authorizing major terrorist operations. Four operational committees, which are responsible for military activities, finance and business, fatwas and other religious matters, and publicity and media, report to the majlis al-shura. Sound pretty well organized to me.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 It takes great organization to pull of major terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11. Their main command is in the middle east and they do have a central command and military command structure how could they have gotten as organized as they did without it. When we went into Iraq we disorganized them to the point where it may be difficult for them to pull off another attack. Couple that with the increased security here in the US and, in my mind, that's why they have not done anything since. I'm not sure how the fact that they don't wear a uniform or carry ID cards has anything do with my point. The increased security is one of the reasons but the war in Iraq had little to no effect on Al-Queida's ability to carry out attacks outside of the Middle East. Ask the Spanish or the English whether or not Al Queida could mount a terrorist operation after the Iraq War started. Trying to contain terrorists in a war zone is similar to trying to herd cats, it just ain't happening. OBTW Since you believe that Al Queida is organized along traditional military lines, do you happen to know where their battalions are stationed? How about their orgainzational chart? Do they have Second and Third Line options for information flow?
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 The increased security is one of the reasons but the war in Iraq had little to no effect on Al-Queida's ability to carry out attacks outside of the Middle East. Ask the Spanish or the English whether or not Al Queida could mount a terrorist operation after the Iraq War started. Trying to contain terrorists in a war zone is similar to trying to herd cats, it just ain't happening. OBTW Since you believe that Al Queida is organized along traditional military lines, do you happen to know where their battalions are stationed? How about their orgainzational chart? Do they have Second and Third Line options for information flow? Since you were posting this when I posted it above I'll post it here again for your convenience. Four operational committees, which are responsible for military activities, finance and business, fatwas and other religious matters, and publicity and media, report to the majlis al-shura.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Afghanistan would have worked just as well. Any place that would have drawn Al Qaeda out. Where did you get the idea that either conflict "drew Al Queida out?" Where did you get the idea that a terrorist organization fights gun battles in the street? We aren't fighting Al Queida direectly in either theatre. We're fighting the Taliban in Afganistan and tribal battles in Iraq. NOT AL QUEIDA!! Yes some Al Queida figures have been taken down over there, but those things are the result of intelligence work, targeted raids, and sometimes just dumb luck.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 At the same time, bin Laden also seeks ideas for attacks from below, encouraging creative approaches and “out of the box” thinking from al-Qaeda operatives and sympathizers. He then provides funding to those proposals he finds most promising. In this respect, al-Qaeda is unlike most other terrorist groups, which tend to be organized hierarchically—that is, in a rigid pyramidal fashion with a commander at the top issuing orders to the individual cells below. Instead, al-Qaeda was conceived as a flatter, less rigid network. Accordingly, some al-Qaeda operations—especially the most important and spectacular attacks such as those of September 11, the embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole—were likely planned and ordered by bin Laden and the majlis al-shura. However, others—like the shoe bomb attempt and the handheld missile attack—may have been independently carried out by local groups inspired or motivated, but perhaps only indirectly assisted, by bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is therefore less cohesive in membership than traditionally organized terrorist groups, with a more diffuse and open structure. This flatter, more networked organization is a key strength that likely accounts for the movement’s continued longevity despite the global onslaught directed against it. Individual terrorists or groups under al-Qaeda’s umbrella are able to operate without having specific orders issued from a central command authority. This loose structure means that al-Qaeda does not have one set method of operating or a single, identifiable footprint. This makes it that much harder for military and law enforcement officials to effectively fight and ultimately defeat al-Qaeda. The next two paragraphs of the article you linked illistrate the point I'm trying to make. A regional conflict does nothing to contain a terrorist group. in fact it has the opposite effect. It allows the terrorist group to use the conflict as a recruiting and propaganda tool in it's asymetrical war.
The Big Cat Posted November 6, 2008 Author Posted November 6, 2008 Link Sound pretty well organized to me. Wow, that's some incredible insight, Chef. Thanks. You have hereby forfeited your right to refer to ANYONE as a sheep and/or kool aid drinker. Way to ask the hard questions.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Can you agree then, that there is a possibility that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is because our military had kept the enemy occupied in Iraq? So we lose 3000 people in a terrorist attack on our soil... and then we go ahead and fight them on their soil (well, not theirs, someone elses)... then we lose 4000 Americans in the fight in order to prevent another 3000 American loss? And this is considered a victory against terrorism?
Dan Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Can you agree then, that there is a possibility that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is because our military had kept the enemy occupied in Iraq? That point might have validity if you or anyone would concede that Clinton effectively fought the war against terror for the remaining 7 years of his presidency, as jkx2 alluded to. So, do you acknowledge that Clinton did a great job by preventing further terrorist attacks?
Boomer860 Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 So we lose 3000 people in a terrorist attack on our soil... and then we go ahead and fight them on their soil (well, not theirs, someone elses)... then we lose 4000 Americans in the fight in order to prevent another 3000 American loss? And this is considered a victory against terrorism? Prevent a another 3000 loss , that could be a huge understatement. You have a better solution other than bending over and grabbing our ankles?
Recommended Posts