|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The *symptom* of the problem is terrorist attacks. They have been going on
for years.
The *problem* is the terrorists. The same 14 or so groups, have existed for
years.
What motivates them to be *the problem* is not within my scope of
comprehension.
Terrorists are predominately small groups of fanatical (no religious
overtone implied here) people.
Its not effective to eliminate small disperse groups of people with mass
bombings .... gulf war style, that's way to indiscriminate.
Covert operations (CIA, KGB, MI5 etc) are needed to eliminate, *the
problem*.
Trouble is; that takes time, is secretive and therefore gives the appearance
that the government is doing nothing, is politically impotent and makes
really bad TV.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Roos" <rosewood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>; "Dean DiCarlo"
<junkmayl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Avoid what Bin Laden wants?
> Don't divert the issue to nukes: that is not the problem here.
>
> Let's *work the problem*. The problem I presented is to figure out what
Bin
> Laden wants and to figure a tactical approach that does not give him what
he
> wants but delivers some of our goals to us. We need to know what our
goals
> are first, therefore, other than "kicking butt". Diverting onto issues
like
> nukes does not help solve the problem!
>
> Bin Laden may actually *want* a giant in their midst bent upon "overkill
> retaliation" which I promoted 2 days ago (in my anger and rush to *do
> something*). The more aggressively we "kick butt", the more likely we
are
> to be surrounded without an escape route by Pakistan and Iranian
mujahadeen
> armies, as we see the Islamic empire rise up like a sleeping dragon,
> gathering around it's mesmerising new leader, "Salidin" Bin Laden.
>
> We want to act in order to be proud, we want to be successful, we want to
> feel safe again. We should establish other goals most important to us, th
en
> develop a plan which will acheive those goals but avoid the unification
goal
> of Bin Laden.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> Let's not get too hysterical here. Our army is actually been readied for
> nuclear war with Russia. A few nuclear weapons from a Rich Saudi with cell
> phone as a battle field communicator is not going to slow them down.
> Catching him would be good. It is important that we have a trail of
evidence
> leading to him. I'm afraid that it won't lead to the end of terrorism.
> We executed Timothy McVeigh this year and 20 times as many terrorists have
> sprung up. Is it going to keep increasing at this pace?
> We have a free and open society, that's why we are at risk.
>
> Jim Bronke
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean DiCarlo" <junkmayl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:02 PM
> Subject: RE: Avoid what Bin Laden wants?
>
>
> : I have been thinking that this may be a trap sprung by bin laden. There
> is
> : not doubt that bin laden does not have the capability to launch nukes to
> the
> : U.S., but does he have access to them? Who knows, but what if this is a
> : trap to get a huge part of our armed forces sucked into his land where
he
> : can deploy what nukes he may have on a large section of the U.S. forces?
> We
> : alredy know they have enough crazies over there who would be honored to
> hit
> : the tip of a nuke with a hammer just as a group of our marines closes in
> on
> : him...
> :
> : This is a VERY scary thought, but how could the U.S. military protect
> : against it?
> :
> : Deano
> : -----Original Message-----
> : From: Don Roos [mailto:rosewood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> : Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:36 PM
> : To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Ullrich Fischer
> : Subject: Re: Avoid what Bin Laden wants?
> :
> :
> : There will always be serious technical and logistical problems invading
> : someone else's country, such as experienced by the Soviet army, but the
> : main problem would be that Bin Laden is now thought of as a Robin Hood
and
> : is
> : liked much better than the Taliban by the
> : population. If we move into a country without means of escape or
control
> of
> : our flanks, to find a moving target, who is worshiped by the populace,
> what
> : chance of success do we have? If we were to move into the area in a
> : stepping stone process of full scale conventional warfare to provide
> : adequate resupply and protection from flank attack, we would have to
move
> : through Pakistan or Iran. They would not be able to stop us, but my
point
> : is that Bin Laden has written and stated that his objective
> : is to get the west to engage in a way that will enrage the 1 billion
> Islamic
> : followers to oppose the western Christian "infidels" on their soil, thus
> : unifying the Muslim world into one empire again, not seen since the fall
> of
> : Constantinople. Bin Laden wants to be the head of that empire with a
> puppet
> : mulla figurehead. Do we want to engage Bin Laden on his terms or ours?
> We
> : need to
> : evaluate and study what Bin Laden wants, and then come to some approach
> : which will go after him on our
> : terms and time. I do not feel the enraged population will easily simmer
> : down and accept some neat cruise missile attacks this time. The bigger
> : problem will be not to engage prematurely on Bin Laden's terms.
> :
> : Don
> :
> :
> : ----- Original Message -----
> : From: "Ullrich Fischer" <uf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> : To: "Don Roos" <rosewood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> : Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:58 PM
> : Subject: Re: Avoid what Bin Laden wants?
> :
> :
> : Well said, Don. At the very least, the US will have to bring China into
a
> : military alliance. This may be difficult, but given that China has
> : suffered from Islamic extremist bombs in some of its northern cities
over
> : the last few years, should not be impossible.
> :
> : At 9/15/2001 06:45 PM, Don Roos wrote:
> : >When we think of the fact that an out-of-control war between the west
and
> : >the Islamic countries is *exactly* what Bin Laden wants and has written
> : >about (and that his aspirations are similar to Hitler's), it is very
> scary
> : >to think of the impact upon our sons as well as ourselves of a
> dictatorial
> : >leader of an entire 1 billion Islamic people with the extermination of
> the
> : >Jews as well as the entire destruction of modern technological
Christian
> : >society as the goals of the dictator (Bin Laden). The challenge we must
> : face
> : >to avoid this trap will be formidible.
> : >
> : >The initial trap is the temptation to carpet bomb and try to destroy an
> : >already destroyed country, Afghanistan. That is what he wants us to
do:
> by
> : >bombing the widows and orphans of Afghanistan and placing ground troops
> : into
> : >an Islamic country (which will be the only way to get Bin Laden) we
will
> : see
> : >a turn
> : >of the moderates against us and the polarization of the west against
the
> : >Islamic *billion*
> : >that Bin Laden wants. We could easily find our troops surrounded by
> : hoardes
> : >of new anti-crusaders without
> : >escape.
> : >
> : >I do now know what the solution is, but to walk into a Viet Nam trap
> : >that defeated the awsome Soviet Empire war machine would be tantamount
to
> : >purposefully walking into a trap of worldwide strategic proportions.
In
> : >addition, I became aware of the fact only today that Afghanistan *does*
> : have
> : >a border with China. The last times we invaded a country bordering
China
> : >were
> : >in 50's and 60's and they did not produce a good result.
> : >
> : >Don
> :
> :
> :
>
|