Timing of U.S. Response?

[aNoNo]

Any thoughts on the timing of the U.S. response to attacks on NYC, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania flight?

My thought is to delay while U.S. agents are in process of rounding up potential terrorists. Radio reports this morning that 5 detained individuals had maps of Sears Tower and some of the 5 had drivers licences to transport hazardous cargo.

I mean - it does not look like bin Laden is going on a voluntary vacation any time soon.

Also a delay puts more stress on the Taliban government which may be in a more unstable position than seemed to be the case earlier. There are reports that there have already been defections in the Taliban military.

[Actuary321]

They're waiting for the new moon.

[independent]

One news story says they've got 4-6 weeks of decent weather left, after that it'w winter in the mountain.

Might just spend the winter building a few bases.

[OT]

IMO, we are not delaying for the sake of delaying. We are taking the necessary time to gather evidence. I think this will be important in determining and securing friends or foes. Hopefully the Taliban will actually turn out to be an ally after they hear the evidence.

As a result of taking the necessary time to investigate I hear that a side benefit is that we were able to capture other terrorists who were planning on a counter attack against the US’s counter attack. For terrorists to launch a second attack before a US counter attack would make the terrorists more hated than they would like to be which would result it a strain or evaporation of what ever outside infrastructure support/resources they must be clinging to. Well, this is what I heard, anyway.

[Laocoön]

Whenever we have concluded the major part of our retaliation, when we are beginning to believe that we have accomplished our goal, it is pretty predictable that there will be an attempt to make another major terrorist attack. Better to spend as long as anyone can stand identifying the enemy and planning on an action, and then getting as much as we possibly can all at once. That way we might be able to limit the extent of the counter-attack.

[The Mister]

<font size=2>By the way, what's the point of waiting for the new moon? If anyone has the advantage in nearly complete darkness, not to mention the harsh winters, it's the mountain-dwelling terrorists, who have lived there for years and are used to the terrain and weather patterns.

[Actuary321]

The new moon reduces their ability to see and shoot down our stealth bombers.

[Oliver Klozov]

I heard on CNN that the U.S. is "covertly" supporting the Northern Territory in its fight against the Taliban.

This is actually how the U.S. got into all of this mess in the first place. By supporting rebels in Afghanistan in their fight for freedom from the invading Soviets. One of the rebel forces that was supported and funded by the government was in fact headed by none other than Osama bin Laden. The irony here is a bit rich.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Oliver Klozov on 2001-10-02 10:34 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Oliver Klozov on 2001-10-02 10:45 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-02 10:29, Oliver Klozov wrote:
This is actually how the U.S. got into all of this mess in the first place. By supporting rebels in Afghanistan in their fight for freedom from the invading Soviets. One of the rebel forces that was supported and funded by the government was in fact headed by none other than Osama bin Laden. The irony here is a bit rich.


Only if you minimize the significance of the demise of the Soviet Union, which shortly followed their pullout from Afghanistan.

[Grits N Gravy]

On 2001-10-02 08:59, The Mister wrote:
<font size=2>By the way, what's the point of waiting for the new moon? If anyone has the advantage in nearly complete darkness, not to mention the harsh winters, it's the mountain-dwelling terrorists, who have lived there for years and are used to the terrain and weather patterns.


If anyone has an advantage in nearly complete darkness, it's the guys with the night vision goggles and aircraft with FLIR pods. The harsh winter will definitely be a big obstacle even with our technological advantage. If it makes sense to wait out the winter, I'm sure that's what we'll do.

[Oliver Klozov]

Aaron:

That is exactly the point. The U.S. acted under the guise of helping the Afghan people, when their real motive was to prevent the USSR from gaining a strategic port.

As for the two world wars, the U.S. sat on the sideline for the first 2 years and profited at the expense of the British. After the wars were over, the U.S. helped build up Germany and Japan, and again made profits while Britain was left to its own devices. This is how the U.S. treats its best friend?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Oliver Klozov on 2001-10-02 14:43 ]</font>

[Griffin 1]

On 2001-10-02 14:42, Oliver Klozov wrote:
Aaron:

That is exactly the point. The U.S. acted under the guise of helping the Afghan people, when their real motive was to prevent the USSR from gaining a strategic port.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Oliver Klozov on 2001-10-02 14:43 ]</font>


What port was that?

[Actuary321]

I'm thinking the airport in Kabul.:smile:

[alex]

About the Soviet "invasion" of afghanistan - I think the soviets were guests of the afghani government, defending them against the yahoos who were trying to overthrow them. But ask 100 people on the street here, and 99 will tell you how it was a soviet invasion, and we supported freedom fighters. Read the history, and you'll learn that uncle sam was supporting an overthrow of the afghani gov't, and so to the extent that we had thugs in the country, we were the invaders. And jimmy carter was all for this, and even boycotted the olympics about it. The US won the PR war, that's for sure, and so did Carter, the warm fuzzy mr habitat for humanity.

[golgo13]

Well, I guess now we know (the timing of the US response)!

I hope something good comes out of it: the removal of the Taliban, for one thing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: golgo13 on 2001-10-07 14:34 ]</font>

[Dick the Bruiser]

alex, alex, alex. What have you been smokin?
The Ruskies reported that they were invited after they installed a regime and told it to say that.
Russia is our friend now, but back then they were evil totalitarian bums.
Do you honestly believe they were on an humanitarian mission?
I think the Soviets were more interested in control so that they could influence the area and prevent radical Islamic dissent on their southern border.
The U.S. helped the Afghan rebels only to make life miserable for the Soviets.

[golgo13]

The intervention occurred after the pro-Soviet Afghan regime came under serious threat of collapse due to CIA-supported fundamentalist militas.