9/11

deanhills · Apr 6, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Don't underestimate them. Their cell system has been around for awhile. It's really pretty basic for guerrilla warfare and could probably be traced back a lot further. The men were also fairly well educated from what I remember. I actually thought that was the reason that they didn't attack a nuclear power plant. They knew that a plane wouldn't be able to penetrate the shielding.

An important thing to remember is that the attack was primitive. The most expensive thing they had to pay for was the housing and flight school. Neither of these would have been hard to obtain back before 9/11. Their weapons were box cutters and other cheap weapons that could be bought anywhere. The training wasn't exactly hard either. They weren't learning to be expert pilots. Mythbusters showed that any idiot can at least keep a plane in the air, and that basic knowledge of the layout would give you fairly good control. It was just a standard hijacking for the most part too. Nothing that was really that hard to pull off.

Thanks for the details. Still think by standards of the Middle East, that all of it happened too perfectly. But yes, perhaps the cells they had in the United States could have been more perfectly organized than over here in the Middle East, also who knows, perhaps there were United States citizens involved, indirectly of course or who knows directly. But in reverse it is the same as trying to get to grips with the terrorists in the Middle East, you have to think the way they do, mingle with them, etc. so for the cells in the US to have been successful they would have had to do their research thoroughly and therefore would have had to mix with US citizens to do things as perfectly as they did?

The Parakeet · Apr 6, 2009

It really wasn't that hard of a plan though. It was the equivalent of landing a sucker punch. You may have knocked the champ down, but it doesn't make you a champion boxer. You just got lucky against an unsuspecting enemy.

It worked well, because it should have worked well. They just hijacked some planes. People have done it before, so they knew what to do. You take a hostage and demand to negotiate with the pilots. Pilots have never been killed during a hijacking before (who would fly the plane?) so they open the door to spare the passengers and negotiate with the hijackers. They storm the cockpit and take control. They then barricade/guard the door and aim for recognizable buildings. They even messed this part up by panicking during the re-taking of Flight 93 and crashing into the ground.

Honestly, they could have just watched Executive Decision or read some Tom Clancy to get all that.

DodgeFB · Apr 6, 2009

The Parakeet said:
It really wasn't that hard of a plan though. It was the equivalent of landing a sucker punch. You may have knocked the champ down, but it doesn't make you a champion boxer. You just got lucky against an unsuspecting enemy.

It worked well, because it should have worked well. They just hijacked some planes. People have done it before, so they knew what to do. You take a hostage and demand to negotiate with the pilots. Pilots have never been killed during a hijacking before (who would fly the plane?) so they open the door to spare the passengers and negotiate with the hijackers. They storm the cockpit and take control. They then barricade/guard the door and aim for recognizable buildings. They even messed this part up by panicking during the re-taking of Flight 93 and crashing into the ground.

Honestly, they could have just watched Executive Decision or read some Tom Clancy to get all that.

I think it is good I was not president that day. There is a part of me that believes "you hit me, we will hit each other." I know people say we must be better than that. But as time goes on I care less and less what other countries think of us. I would be fine with returning everything we get back in kind. If we get friendship be their friend. If they sucker punch us, cut them off at the knees. I do not believe in "nation building" while fighting a war. I would want to kill their people (their families if known) break their stuff just like a real military operation.

I better not get started.

The Parakeet · Apr 6, 2009

We did get pretty good revenge really. We crushed the Taliban in a few weeks and appointed their political enemies to rebuilding a half decent government. The air support we used just crushed anything they had in the form of an army. It took them this long to gather up reinforcements for a counter attack, which says something.

deanhills · Apr 7, 2009

The Parakeet said:
We did get pretty good revenge really. We crushed the Taliban in a few weeks and appointed their political enemies to rebuilding a half decent government. The air support we used just crushed anything they had in the form of an army. It took them this long to gather up reinforcements for a counter attack, which says something.

I agree this is excellent, but it is almost the equivalent of slaying a dragon, as soon as you chop off one head, then it grows three others in an instant. Think there is still enormous hurdles to jump over before these evil guys can at least be controlled.

DodgeFB · Apr 7, 2009

The Parakeet said:
We did get pretty good revenge really. We crushed the Taliban in a few weeks and appointed their political enemies to rebuilding a half decent government. The air support we used just crushed anything they had in the form of an army. It took them this long to gather up reinforcements for a counter attack, which says something.

True. But we tried not to "hurt" anyone. And we tried to build back stuff we blew up. Why would I ever blow up something I knew I was going to build back. No one else plays that (in my opinion) silly game. Our soldiers have to fight like they have one hand tied behind their back. It really cuts down on the effect we have there. I am one of those people that believes a soldiers job is to kill people and destroy their stuff. That is what they want to do to us.

Sparks · Apr 8, 2009

I think the neutron bomb was an attempt at killing people, not destroying things, because things were valuable while people are problematic.

GekiDan · Apr 8, 2009

Sparks said:
I think the neutron bomb was an attempt at killing people, not destroying things, because things were valuable while people are problematic.

Well... It's easy to destroy and replace things but not people. Since human takes time to multiply

The Parakeet · Apr 8, 2009

The thing is that most of Afghanistan also wanted the Taliban gone. We absolutely crushed them with our superior air power. Taking out anything else in their country would have been kinda pointless (the resistance fighters with our spotters would also have not been too happy).

It was a great takeover. No reason to change anything we did there. Especially since installing a half decent government was crucial to keeping the Taliban out later on (the war we're fighting now).

deanhills · Apr 10, 2009

The Parakeet said:
The thing is that most of Afghanistan also wanted the Taliban gone. We absolutely crushed them with our superior air power. Taking out anything else in their country would have been kinda pointless (the resistance fighters with our spotters would also have not been too happy).

It was a great takeover. No reason to change anything we did there. Especially since installing a half decent government was crucial to keeping the Taliban out later on (the war we're fighting now).

But is the Taliban really gone? I thought it is usually like slaying dragons. You can only do so by spearing its heart. If you cut off one head, then another one grows quickly.

The Parakeet · Apr 10, 2009

As far as I can tell, they are really gone...from the country. They left and reorganized and they're making a pretty serious push into Afghanistan. That's one of the reasons that we are transferring the soldiers there.

From what I've read, it seems like the people are really happy that the Taliban is gone. The government is still very religious. A man was jailed for having a religion other than Islam not too long ago, but that same man would have been stoned without any investigation a few years ago under the Taliban. It's progress...slow progress...but progress non the less.

GekiDan · Apr 10, 2009

if I'm not mistaken, Bin Laden is the leader of Taliban. Right? I haven't heard any news of him from our local tv and radio stations. What do really happen to him? Is he dead or alive?

The Parakeet · Apr 10, 2009

Well Bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda (too tired to care about spelling

). The Taliban heavily supported them and let them have their training camps in the country. The Taliban itself was the extreme Islamic party running the oppressive theocracy in Afghanistan.

The whole Osama question is actually a good one. There was a rumor going around that his kidneys had failed and he was dying in a cave somewhere. Also some rumors that we might have poisoned him well at some point. Who knows though. He seems to be on the run. He puts out a PR video every once in awhile, but we effectively removed him as their real leader. He's probably just a figurehead now. I assume that's why we've focused on nailing his seconds-in-command.

GekiDan · Apr 10, 2009

The Parakeet said:
The whole Osama question is actually a good one. There was a rumor going around that his kidneys had failed and he was dying in a cave somewhere. Also some rumors that we might have poisoned him well at some point. Who knows though. He seems to be on the run. He puts out a PR video every once in awhile, but we effectively removed him as their real leader. He's probably just a figurehead now. I assume that's why we've focused on nailing his seconds-in-command.

Well... It's good to hear. Because it is hard to forgive those kind of people who kill their fellow human for the sake of opposing to a country.
So do you think Bin Laden is bedridden now and will soon die? And his second-in-command will be the one to be the new leaders?

I have another question. I kept hearing the word and group Jemaha Islamiah(I don't really knew the spelling but it sounds like). Are they connected with Taliban or someone?

deanhills · Apr 11, 2009

GekiDan said:
I have another question. I kept hearing the word and group Jemaha Islamiah(I don't really knew the spelling but it sounds like). Are they connected with Taliban or someone?

Looks as though it is operational in South East Asia, and is connected to El Qaeda.

I found something in Wikipedia :

Islamiyah[1] (Arabic: الجماعه الإسلاميه‎ [translation: "Islamic Congregation"], or JI,[2] is a Southeast Asian militant Islamic organization dedicated to the establishment of a Daulah Islamiyah[3] (Islamic State) in Southeast Asia incorporating Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Philippines, Singapore and Brunei[4]. JI was added to the United Nations 1267 Committee's list of terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban on 25 October 2002[5] under UN Security Council Resolution 1267.
JI has its roots in Darul Islam (DI, meaning "House of Islam"), a radical movement in Indonesia in the 1940s. JI was formally founded on 1 January 1993 by JI leaders, Abu Bakar Bashir and Abdullah Sungkar[6] while hiding in Malaysia from the persecution[7] of the Suharto Government. After the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998, both men returned to Indonesia.[8] where it gained a terrorist edge when one of its founders, the late Abdullah Sungkar, established contact with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. [9]
JI?s violent operations began during the communal conflicts in Maluku and Poso.[10]. It shifted its attention to targeting US and Western interests in Indonesia and the wider Southeast Asian region in response to the US-led war on terror. JI?s terror plans in Southeast Asia were exposed when its plot to set off several bombs in Singapore was foiled by the local authorities.
Recruiting, training, indoctrination, financial and operational links between the JI and other militant groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Misuari Renegade/Breakaway Group (MRG/MBG) and the Philippine Raja Solaiman Movement (RSM) have existed for many years, and continue to this day.[11]
Jemaah Islamiyah is known to have killed hundreds of civilians in the Bali car bombing on October 12, 2002. In the attack, suicide bombers killed 202 people and wounded many in two blasts. The first, smaller blast by a suicide bomber using a backpack, killed a small number of people in a nightclub and drove the survivors into the street, where the vast majority were killed by a massive fertilizer/fuel oil bomb concealed in a parked van. After this attack, the U.S. State Department designated Jemaah Islamiyah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Jemaah Islamiyah is also strongly suspected of carrying out the 2003 JW Marriott hotel bombing in Kuningan, Jakarta, the 2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, and the 2005 Bali terrorist bombing. The JI also has been directly and indirectly involved in dozens of bombings in the southern Philippines, usually in league with the ASG.

GekiDan · Apr 11, 2009

deanhills said:
Looks as though it is operational in South East Asia, and is connected to El Qaeda.

I found something in Wikipedia

The JI also has been directly and indirectly involved in dozens of bombings in the southern Philippines, usually in league with the ASG.

Click to expand...

The last part of the quote is indeed correct from what I have heard in the news. They, journalists, always said that JI is the one who are teaching the ASGs how to make bombs and even fund their needs. I also remember hearing on the news that one of the JI's is also involved in the Sulu International Comitee of the Red Cross members kidnapping case in the past few months.

Kyuubi · Jan 29, 2010

An old thread I know... Sorry to bring it up from the dead but it caught my attention :\
I've been on a few forums where this subject is popular and you get all the kooks who believe in the explosive demolition stuff. I've tried watching many of the "truth" videos that project to 'reveal' an inside jobby job and haven't been able to stomach the fallacies they push. Not to mention I've tried debating some of those people first hand. My basic critique has always been if they were trying to push the "truth" then they would have never found it necessary to inject fiction in their stories, and unfortunately these kinds of people exist frequently especially in this particular conspiracy subject.

Dirk · Jan 29, 2010

I take the view that 9/11 served a useful role for Governments to control people through fear of terrorism... ironically. But these things happen - people kill people, terrorist attacks happen. They don't necessarily need Government organisation - there have been worse attacks. I don't think Governments would jeopardise themselves to control people - you'd want more permanence. Shockdoctrine - you wait for a disaster, then push through all the unpopular legislation right afterward. Like, i don't know, the PATRIOT Act? Or British, German, Danish Anti-Terror laws? Plus, with "terrorism", Governments have an infinite excuse for committing horrible atrocities.

Kyuubi · Jan 29, 2010

I've been more or less under the same impression... And anyway, given the idiocy involved in some of the conspiracy theories what you're saying is light years ahead in likelihood that I'd be willing to consider it much more readily

Dirk · Jan 29, 2010

Kyuubi said:
I've been more or less under the same impression... And anyway, given the idiocy involved in some of the conspiracy theories what you're saying is light years ahead in likelihood that I'd be willing to consider it much more readily

There was a time i seriously considered conspiracy theories. I tend to take a much more common sense attitude now.

9/11

Similar threads