When will they strike next?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Grrr
Absense of Evidense is not Evidense of Absense.

A very good bit of insight Grrr...thanks for pointing it out.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Grrr
But in my opinion there is still not enough evidence that OBL or Al Quida conducted the attacks of 11/9.

That is because you reject what evidence there is out of hand. What evidence have you that Adolf Hitler ever did anything nasty? How much original, authenticated evidence thereof has been personally delivered to you for your inspection? I'm not sure if I understand why the conspiracy types have such a sense of entitlement about seeing evidence directly.

I still don't believe that burning jet fuel (which was gone in a matter of seconds) was responsible for the demolision like precise destruction of the WTC.

This is something that can be verified experimentally, if you had the inclination to bother. First, go buy a thousand liters of petrol, set it up in a reasonably confined space (say a portable shed with some windows missing), store some of it in easily meltable containers, splash some of it around, and cook it off. See how long it lasts - a hell of a lot more than "a matter of seconds" The 767-300 has a fuel capacity of 63,216 liters, these were transcontinental flights (with minimum 90 minutes reserve required in addition to the planned fuel use), so a hell of a lot more than your 1000 liter experiment. The jet fuel wasn't the sole issue, it was a high temperature accelerant for everything else combustible from desks, computers, upholstered furniture, papers, and body fat. The WTC wasn't designed to work as the world's largest fireplace.

If you wanted to take things further, access to a machine shop, a welding shop and a materials test lab would let you put together some structural steel pieces, strength test them before, take some identical pieces, barbecue them, and strength test them after. Now that you've figured out how much your 1000 liter experiment compromised their strength, you could study basic structural design, and work it out from there.

Just because you can't or choose not to understand technical evidence, and you choose to remain ignornant of the technical issues (engineering, physics, chemistry) doesn't mean "there's no evidence" "I don't believe" is also subtly different from "I don't want to believe, so I'll look for someone to spoonfeed me an explanation that fits with my chosen technical ignorance."

I also fail to believe that a domestic airliner crashed into the Pentagon; but the remnants thereof are nowhere to be seen.

Of course not. The remants are just in a little different condition, since that plane flew into the equivalent of a rock.

I wonder why almost all of the steel of the WTC has been recycled as scrap; so that it can no longer be used as evidence in any inquiries.

Hmmm, let's see. Each building was 110 stories. The fires from the crash primarily effected 5-10 stories. There were hundreds, if not thousands of eyewitnesses, especially to the second collision, and to the collapses (which weren't near as clean as demolition, despite what you said earlier). What exactly would be proven by all that other steel?

I wonder why the world has not been shown the evidence that was shown to political leaders in the days following 11/9.

By your definitions, the world has never been shown evidence that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that the Holocaust was real, that Stalin or Mao ever hurt a fly.

I honestly want to know what happened; as I don't wish to take the sugar coated version of events which has been repeated ad nausem on the TV.

It's only "sugar coated" because you want to see evidence for what you already believe, but unfortunately, the evidence that is there to be seen doesn't support your views.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Jon lives nowhere near London and so you spite people like me, who do. Please replace London with Eastbourne.

Calls al-Qaeda

MtG: Do you ever get tired of dealing with people who try very hard to be stupid?

[alofatti]

I don´t know why you say he is a stupid. I think it is quite undeniable that in a political sense, the actual administration has gained a lot of power thanks to 9/11.

I am not saying that they did it though...

[JCG]

Btw, don't you people think that attacking Iraq will leave the U.S. VERY open for an Al Qaeda retaliation? I could certainly see that happening, very soon in fact.

[Grrr]

JCG ... so can I.

They are creating weapons of mass destruction.

Lets attack them. That way their scientists will have more urgency; and they will have a reason to attack us.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Dino - it's a hobby. At least I have fun doing it here. When I get paid to do it, I have to be a tad more polite.

JCG - the US will be no more or less open. I'm not in favor of attacking Iraq, I think the threat (to the extent it exists) is far more regional and less immediate than the Bush administration line. Replacing Saddam would be nice, but the ideal way to do that is with regional support and some form of evolutionary transition. If he really gets out of line before he croaks off, we might have to do something, but I don't see an immediate need to act. Once daddy dies, the two Junion Saddams will be maneuvering to secure loyalties, trying to avoid each other's assassins, and otherwise leaving a wonderful domestic opportunity to exploit. They have the added vigor and brutality of youth, but not much of their daddy's brains. And no, I'm talking about the Hussein family, not the Bush one, although one could draw some parallels.

alofatti - the administration has gained some power in the short term, but in a very fragile way. The economy is a major concern, and whether and how al Qaeda strikes back or how Bush manages his "war" can have a highly unpredictable effect on a fickle electorate.

Grrr - we exist. Therefore, according to their doctrine, they have reason to attack us. Appeasing the terrorist works a bit less well than appeasing the dictator.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Coming a bit late to this. I can't accept the conspiracy theory, either. However, yesterday Salon ran an interesting article about things people think about 9/11, but don't dare say. In that spirit, here's mine:

Sept. 11 is the very best thing ever to happen to George W. Bush.

Before 9/11, remember, Bush was not even considered the legitimate president of the US by a large plurality of Americans. He was pursuing policies (abrogating Kyoto, cutting taxes for the wealthy) that were by no means universally popular. With the defection of Jim Jeffords, his party had lost control of Congress and were looking at the kind of Executive-Legislative deadlock that sank the Ford, Carter, and first Bush administrations.

After 9/11, Bush is actually considered a leader. Moreover, he's been able to use the crisis to institute policies that are GOP dogma, but would have been wildly unpopular at any other time: building up the military at the expense of a balanced budget, and rolling back civil liberties with impunity. His "you're with us or against us" blather has effectively stifled dissent. Politically, 9/11 was Christmas for the Bushies, and they got everything they wanted. No wonder people are tempted to see conspiracy here. But it's not conspiracy; it's just (forgive the phrase) dumb luck.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
But it's not conspiracy; it's just (forgive the phrase) dumb luck.

No...you're not forgiven...

...you're applauded!

Sometimes life rolls the dice in favor of those who REALLY shouldn't get ahead in this world. Or the Presidency...

[notyoueither]

Was there a topic?

Oh yeah, that one...

They will either strike exactly on 9/11 to flip the bird at the US, or they will do nothing at all until a time that everyone is calm and relaxed and feeling almost good about things again. The goal of terror is to destabilise a society, to sap its willingness to fight, to undermine faith in its leadership, and what not. It needs to be balanced against emboldening the foe and bringing greater destruction on you and yours than you inflict on them.

Flipping the bird is probably not a good idea. You don't want to enrage the US to the point of doing things too fast or effectively, like totalling the Taliban. Later would be better, after NATO has had further chances to break down in disagreement over plans and objectives. After America and Americans are further isolated from traditional friends and allies would be much better.

From that point of view, why do anything that risks assets while the Americans are charging off after Sadam. Kill 2 birds with that first stone. Strike later, after they have calmed down. Enrage them then so that they are abandoned by more of the allies who are not quite ready to abandon them yet.

[Lord Merciless]

The problem with calming down is that you display your weakness and are subject to defections. The real threat of the Al Qaeda is that it can become a major political movement. Hate alone will not drive anyone into suicide bombings, but hate combined with the hope of success will encourage a lot more people. If the Al Qaeda keeps quiet for a couple of years, then it may well lose its momentum and be abandoned by its followers.

[notyoueither]

They don't have to do anything to cost themselves while the Americans are charging around poking at regimes in various muslim countries. Especially if those regimes happen to be secular dictatorships.

The US fans the flames among many muslims for every innocent hurt. They are relieved of having to bump Saddam off themselves. They have already demonstrated they can be 'successful'.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Hate alone will not drive anyone into suicide bombings, but hate combined with the hope of success will encourage a lot more people. If the Al Qaeda keeps quiet for a couple of years, then it may well lose its momentum and be abandoned by its followers.

I would disagree. I would say that hate alone is enough and that the chance of success is not what is attracting followers.

If you tighten the rein on a group of people it reduces their chance of success, yes, but if it increases resentment in the community at large then it will cause more people to have terrorist sympathies.

Whether or not they join a particular terrorist group is irrelevant - they have less to lose and more to gain, so more are willing to fight for the cause

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I would disagree. I would say that hate alone is enough and that the chance of success is not what is attracting followers.

If you tighten the rein on a group of people it reduces their chance of success, yes, but if it increases resentment in the community at large then it will cause more people to have terrorist sympathies.

Whether or not they join a particular terrorist group is irrelevant - they have less to lose and more to gain, so more are willing to fight for the cause

The 'cause' is the keyword here. A losing cause will not attract the masses. A movement of few hardcores is hardly threatening, but mass movements are.

Have you ever heard of "carrot and stick" approach? That's what the US is doing right now or at least trying to do. Look at Afghanistan, we first bombed the hardcore US haters out of power, and next we try to buy off the skeptical majority with candies. Remember, we also used the same approach on Germany and Japan.


I think the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of a century ago provided an interesting parallel to the current Islamic fundamentalism:
- China suffered humiliations at hands of Western powers.
- The tradition Chinese culture reacted to the Western cultural influences.
- Religion provided motivation and fanaticism.
- Hardcore Boxers were suicidal warriors.

In the end, the Boxers were ruthlessly crushed by the foreign powers. Hundred thousands of Chinese were murdered by foreigners, and China suffered even more indignity. By your logic, the hate among Chinese would swell even higher and far more Boxers would arise to attack foreigners. Well, the reality couldn't be more different. The Boxer movement vanished without a trace(except in some folklores), the intelletuals were chastizing the very traditions the Boxers were trying to protect, the government insituted social and political reforms unthinkable before the rebellion, and ordinary Chinese recognized the need to reform their own society.

It's about time that Islamic nations follow a similar footsteps: get out of the middle age and embrace the modern age.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin



Hey.

Jon lives nowhere near London and so you spite people like me, who do. Please replace London with Eastbourne.

You evil little whore!

Before 9/11, remember, Bush was not even considered the legitimate president of the US by a large plurality of Americans. He was pursuing policies (abrogating Kyoto, cutting taxes for the wealthy) that were by no means universally popular. With the defection of Jim Jeffords, his party had lost control of Congress and were looking at the kind of Executive-Legislative deadlock that sank the Ford, Carter, and first Bush administrations.

After 9/11, Bush is actually considered a leader. Moreover, he's been able to use the crisis to institute policies that are GOP dogma, but would have been wildly unpopular at any other time: building up the military at the expense of a balanced budget, and rolling back civil liberties with impunity. His "you're with us or against us" blather has effectively stifled dissent. Politically, 9/11 was Christmas for the Bushies, and they got everything they wanted. No wonder people are tempted to see conspiracy here. But it's not conspiracy; it's just (forgive the phrase) dumb luck.

And you have a motive. This coupled with claims that the administration is motivated by the oil gives a far greater motive than the terrorists.

I don't know, I'm just trying to analyse the atrocities logically, which, due to the highly tragic nature of the disaster, many seem to find hard to do.