Yes, this is pretty clear. It’s beyond me how even Shodan can defend someone who, instead of clearly articulating that these are the policies the terrorists are against and the reason for their attacks (and then, hopefully, why these policies are worth continuing even in the face of terrorism), invents some laughable but appealing bullshit about them hating Joe and Susie America’s liberty and freedom. Yes yes, the terrorists hate us because our electoral processes just make them sooooo mad. Definately, they went to all this trouble because they hate babies and trees and apple pies.
According to the Washington Post, only about 600 Iraqi troops invaded Khafji. Their purpose was to engage coalition forces, not to invade SA. Khafji is on the coast right next to Kuwait.
"ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF KHAFJI, Saudi Arabia,
Jan. 31—A fierce battle for this deserted coastal town ended today when forces from Saudi Arabia and the emirate of Qatar, backed by American artillery and air strikes, evicted Iraqi troops and tanks,
and freed two trapped U.S. Marine reconnaissance teams.
The 12 Marines had been trapped in Khafji since Tuesday night when the town was overrun by about 400 to 600 Iraqi troops and 40 to 45 tanks in the first major ground action of the Persian Gulf War."
I am saying that the Pentagon lied about the massive buildup of Iraqi troops on the SA border, in order to justify basing their troops in SA. The pentagon never released their satellite photos which supposedly showed the buildup. There is no evidence that the photos even exist. The Pentagon classified the photos, claiming that revealing them would compromise their intelligence sources. They had no problem showing satellite photos of supposed evidence of WMDs in Iraq recently, or for that matter of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Why suddenly the secrecy? I think the emperor has no clothes. It wouldn’t be the first time the Pentagon lied to justify a war, perhaps you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
At least in this case, the government admitted it had overestimated the size of the ground force:
“After the war, the House Armed Services Committee issued a report on lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War. It did not specifically look at the early stages of the Iraqi troop buildup in the fall, when the Bush administration was making its case to send American forces. But it did conclude that at the start of the ground war in February, the US faced only 183,000 Iraqi troops, less than half the Pentagon estimate.”
There is more about what the satellite photos did reveal:
"The Times retained two satellite image specialists to interpret the photos: Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who now is a professor of engineering at George Washington University in Washington D.C, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked not to be named because of the classified nature of his work.
While Iraqi troops cannot be seen, it is easy to spot the extensive American military presence at the Dhahran Airport in Saudi Arabia. “We could see five C-141s one C5A and four smaller transport
aircraft, probably C-130s,” said Zimmerman. “There is also a long line of fighters, F-111s or F-15s
on the ground. In the middle of the airfield are what could be camouflaged staging areas. “We did not find anything of that sort anywhere in Kuwait. We do not see any tent cities, we do not see
congregations of tanks, we do not see troops concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It’s five weeks after August 2, 1990, and what we can see, the Iraqi air force has not flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of (military) people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. They have to have water at the rate of several gallons per man per day. They have to have shelter. But where is it?”.”
As a sovereign nation, we can only treat with, and accomodate, the desires of other sovereign nations. We can’t tailor our policies to satisfy every Tom, Dick, and Mahmoud in the middle east. So, are you’re saying is that we shouldn’t listen to the heads of state of a given nation but must consider the desires of every crank, lout, and mouth-breather with a chip on his shoulder and a belt-full of C-4, ball bearings and rat poison? If so, then the ** OP ** is correct, and we got what was coming to us.
Unfortunately I don’t. And I don’t think anyone has. The point is, that the US is not exactly popular in the middle east because of the ways it pushes it’s own political and strategic goals with no respect of local religions, beliefs, cultures etc.
That’s of course crap. I don’t see how you can read taht out of my statement.
Yeah, but this would mean, you’d have to be diplomatic and you’d have to think before you act.
And the current administration seems not to be very good at any of these disciplines.
Shodan your the thick one… the former attack on WTC was a few years before. So lets see your first post in this thread shall we ? Bang in a bit to see if it gets in… the US is no angel and a lot of shitty stuff was done in the cold war.
Lets go by paragraphs:
Defending Kuwait caused the WTC ? (better freeing Kuwait)Nope
Bush could be more secular… its not that simple
The US might be free and prosperous… but they have been supporting Despots all over the world. From Iran to Latin America the Coups were always to put in heavy handed desposts. Not democrats. So yes… the US didnt have that vision for the rest of society.
They arent threatened by US sucess… just its foreign policy and arrogance.
Again what policy you do INSIDE the US isnt what your doing OUTSIDE. US policy was always divide and conquer… keep friendly desposts to avert communism. Communism isnt nice… but desposts arent either.
Things wont change while the US keeps giving good reasons for people to support terrorism. Without support and cash these terrorists are way less effective. So killing them is less important than winning the minds and hearts of the Arab World so that they will stop financing these discontents. If the US doesnt change… why do they expect others to change ?
You have a choice… the Iraqi werent given one. They might have preferred UN rule ? They seem to be complaining about your choice of security for them by daily attacks.
So wake up and smell the coffee… the US is no paragon of democracy outside its borders. Even inside the Florida debacle seemed very Banana Republic too me. It sure could do a bit more to ensure the stability of capitalism too. So what if the US was defending its interests ? They do have the right to do so… but they miscalculated or overdid their hand. Payback time was WTC.
Now instead of just crazily thinking you can shoot every terrorist alive… how about making sure the things that generated the wackos is changed ? How about helping create a better world where terrorists will have less chances to prosper ? How about letting Israel know that its policies wont be defended blindly with American Blood ? Saddam was product of American Policies… so before you call anyone stupid make sure you know what is happening. Stop waving the flag and start getting your ideas straight.
Response to the Iraq had or hadnt massed troops on the border with Saudi Arabia…
That fact is irrelevant. Having taken Kuwait the Iraqi could in a week join enough troops to attack Saudi Arabia. (If that would be sucessful is another issue.) The US being a bit far would have at best deployed lightly armed Marines and Paratroopers. Infantry, even if elite, in the open desert isnt what you want to fight 7-72 with. Bringing tanks takes time...
So the US, the world too of course, couldnt risk Saddam having the 3 main oil producing countries. I dont think it was Saddams plan to attack Saudi Arabia.... but still... it might have become later on. So they dispatched troops as fast as possible.
Rashak Mani is right. If you accept the historical fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait and at least tried to invade Saudi Arabia with a substantial armored force, why does the prepositioning of the forces matter that much? It’s not like armored columns sit around to be struck by air attacks if they can avoid it. Hiding from satellites is just part of doing business in the modern military. I’d assume that troops are trained to do it all the time. I’d do it to save my ass. YMMV.
If you want to find out Osama Bin Laden’s reasons, why don’t you simply read what he actually said following the attacks on the twin towers. Let’s take the Al Jazeera version first, one step at a time:
So formerly Moorish Spain of 700 years ago becoming tragically Muslim free, with a danger of a similar thing happening in Israel is Reason #1.
Whatever this rant is supposed to mean, it has been going on since the time of Calvin Coolidge, or thereabouts. Possibly the infidel Western world is deemed to be fully responsible for the low estate of the Muslim world. Reason #2.
Probably the Israelis are the main focus of his ire here. Reason #3.
This would refer to the ante bellum boycott of goods into Iraq which supposedly caused great suffering over and above that inflicted by Saddam Hussein and his cohorts. Reason #4.
So, Osam bin Loser has given everyone his reasons, such as they are, and although some of his rants are too incoherent to understand completely, there is no real need to speculate further on what he and his followers believe or on how they are likely to behave in the future.
Since clairobscur isn’t here to debunk the whole “certain people made it clear they would not support a resolution of war no matter what” bullstuff (again), you can read the details for yourself here (the most recent re-iteration I could find):
We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance here, remember?
I hate to say it but i think many people are missing the point of most terrorism, if people listen closley to what people like Osama Bin Laden are saying then people would realise that its not what America believe in that dirves the terrorists to target them, its the fact that America sees it as its duty to spread its self worldwide, most people in the middle east want nothing to do with the USA they want to fight their own conflcits, without help from the USA, they don’t want a MacDonalds in every town, they don’t want American companies interfering in their lifes, which is why i think that sice the USA attacked Iraq it has given terrorists more reasons to attack America, don’t get me wrong the USA did what they had to do and get rid of Saddam Huessein, but by doing so it has opened the door for a lot of new attacks.
Just add something to your comment: Remember that for the devout Muslims the US and the West are sinners, over sexed and without morals. The US spreading out does mean their “pure” gets “infected”. In general I agree with you thou. Osama would like to see the Arab world kept free of these influences principally.
PS Beagle… where did I talk of hiding from satelites ?
PS Moderator Gaudere I didnt start the stupid calling… check a few posts before.
Rashak: Please provide proof of your assertion that “for devout Muslims the US and the West are sinner […].” Last I checked, there were more than a few Muslims in the United States and some of them are <gasp> in the Armed Forces. I hear they’re devout, especially the Muslim chaplains.
Taking their values... we westerners drink alcohol, use skimpy clothes, our women dont cover hair or anything much in fact. We eat pork and fornicate a lot. We show sex on TV and we let women walk freely.
In fact for a devout [insert religion here] anyone outside their group is a sinner and devoid of virtue usually.
