How Would They Do it?

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 9, 2005 10:58
VIEWED: 3439
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Saturday, August 6, 2005 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
By the way, IB. I discuss these things a fair about at the Universal Board, do you mind if I re-post your article over there?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Long as you attribute it to me--go for it. (E.G. "posted by IB on the FFF.net boards")

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

RUE

Saturday, August 6, 2005 4:56 PM

IB,

I appreciated your post, which was thoughtful, detailed, and impersonal and impartial. And if I have read your post correctly, we agree the 'war on terror' is not winnable primarily through military action.

I do have one small caveat. The question as posted read 'how would they do it?' but I feel it was aimed more at ends (goals) than means (strategy). And while your post walked both paths (ends and means) there was one omission. And that is - the goals/strategy as you have stated are to get the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq. But, what was the goal BEFORE the US invaded those countries?

Specifically, what was the goal of 9/11? I think the answer to that question will answer all subsequent events.

Rue

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:07 PM

Not to answer for IB, but Osama's original mission statement was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. Their military base there was his biggest issue for many years.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:22 PM

OK. OOC (out of curiosity) how would 9/11 accomplish that? I don't see an intrinsic tie that would automatically connect bases in Saudi Arabia to 9/11. It seems too indirect to me to be either a political statement or strategic action. Your thoughts?

PS Unless of course there was a mission statement for 9/11 (get US out of Saudi Arabia) which was suppressed in the news. (DANGER! conspiracy territory!)

PPS As I recall, unlike many terrorist actions, no one claimed credit for 9/11. No agenda statement was released. Who and why was a mystery.

It was the Bush admin who a couple of weeks later said it was al Qaeda.

So, what if there was a statement in which al Qaeda said it was them, and/or that it was to get US infidels out of Saudi Arabia? And it was suppressed? Would that make sense out of getting Saudis out of the US ASAP? Of the Admins conclusion it was al Qaeda when no evidence existed for that? Would it make sense out of the request/order of the Admin for news sources to not directly broadcast ObL videos?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:46 PM

I think he was trying to make a large symbolic gesture that would show Muslims in the middle east that they are not as powerless against us as they might think. I also think he was trying to push us into military action that would alientate us around the world. He hopes to inspire people to accept his image of the US as an imperialistic aggressor and rise up against us.

I suppose you are asking for a more direct purpose, but I'm not sure there is one. He might have hoped it would have more of an economic impact than it did. And, of course, I could be wrong about all this and he's just a religious nut. Either way, I think the dynamics of what I described above are real, regardless of his actual intent.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:57 PM

No, I'm not looking for a direct purpose, but one that was clearly attributable. It's hard to be the banner for a movement if you do not make yourself known. Otherwise, Columbian cartels, the Russian mob or anyone else could have claimed it for their own purposes, the mob become empowered and radical Muslims just as resigned as ever.

It goes back to an issue I've harped on before. Within a couple of weeks of 9/11, Bush said the US had proof it was al Qaeda, but that they couldn't show the information to anyone.

But 'proof' came only months after the Taliban was declared defeated and troops were sifting through rail-car loads of papers and other evidence. It was announced (with much smugness) the proof was in the form of a video of high level al Qaeda toasting 9/11 with a bottle of Stoli and cigars. (JUST KIDDING!) Celebrating nevertheless. That was a tenous connection long after the fact.

Not that I dispute it was al Qaeda. And 9/11 may have been to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. But for me, the purpose is still murky.

-------------

And now off into Al-foil hat territory. The more I think about it, the odder it gets - the lack of claims of responsibility, the quick ID of al Qaeda, the lack of Islamist rhetoric etc.

In the end, the info may have come from high level Saudis in the US, connected to another group of mucky-muck Saudis who were involved. The reason to hustle Saudis out of the country, suppress the mission statement, and censor al Qaeda was to prevent a break in US/Saudi (oil) relations. Countries have gone to war for less.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Saturday, August 6, 2005 10:16 PM

Well, I'm going to take another running stab at 9/11.

First of all, the US was a continuing target overseas and at home (millenium bomber). So 9/11 was part of a pattern.

It occurred to me that I may be focusing too much on what happened on 9/11 rather than what could have happened.

If the attacks had succeeded, it is possible the US would have been leaderless (Bush and perhaps Cheney would have been in the WH when it was attacked - OOC, I know where Bush was, where was Cheney?), and the military could have been crippled (Pentagon seriously damaged with great loss of life), as well as having its economic infrastructure non-functional.

If 9/11 was a serious strategic move against the US, what would be the follow-up? Not a conventional war. Nor do I see it as a cue for Muslims to rise up around the world. So, it doesn't make sense to me as a strategic opening. But if it was one, it was a failure. Only 1 target was destroyed and governmental and military capacity was left completely intact.

OTOH if the US had been crippled, it would have had phenomenal PR value for radical Islamists. I can't imagine al Qaeda staying silent if that was the goal.

You know, it make more sense as a trial run.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, August 6, 2005 11:14 PM

It's possible he hoped it would cripple us, but I'm doubting it. I honestly the think the point was to start the "War on Terror". I think he knew, especially with the hawkish neo-cons behind Bush, that they couldn't resist the bait.

The other thing that I think we're glossing over. The point of terrorism is 'terror'. I don't think there there was anything, beyond the symobolic value, that was strategic about 9/11 as far as the actual attack. It was meant to induce fear and anger. They use this sort of thing in the ways IB outlined.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, August 6, 2005 11:46 PM

I'll need to sign off for now, but I'm going to continue thinking about this.

Sorry to grind on this point. Given how much it annoys my coworkers when I do that, I'm guessing it's doing the same to you.

(Like SignyM, I must be perseverative. Now that's an interesting word with a very specific use. I wonder how it came into Signy's parlance.)

Thanks for the chat.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, August 7, 2005 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sorry to grind on this point. Given how much it annoys my coworkers when I do that, I'm guessing it's doing the same to you.

Not in the slightest. Persistent inquisitiveness is one of my favorite personality traits.

Besides, I think most of us posting on RWE get a perverse joy in having our opinions challenged.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE