|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Craig wrote:
>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*.
Please indicate a historical example of covert operations success eliminating small dispersed groups.
OM
----- Original Message -----
>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
>> :
>> :
>> :
>>
>
>
>
|