Pentagon bombed...

[Syndrix]

Krayt Tion is exactly right, it is open to interpretation just like any other religions, Bin laden has just used it as to mask his own hatred and viciousness. This is why it is so terrible to hear reports of violence against Muslims that live in countries that had nothing to do with the Tuesday tragedy. People who commit random violence like that are no better than people who commit acts of terror. At least not in principles.

 

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[Guest Kurgan]

Exactly, it's important to keep in mind that Islam is not some monolithic institution that encompsses all Mulsims and sanctions the kinds of acts that Bin Laden and the WTC terrorists carried out under the veneer of their religious beliefs.

 

Just as there are 23,000 some varieties of Christianity in the world, and even within denominations there is not 100% agreement on everything, within Islam there are many different sects and branches. Osama Bin Laden represents a very small group compared to the 1 billion Muslims in the world.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[wardz]

no probs kurg.

 

 

wardz

[StormHammer]

I guess I didn't word my last post very well.

 

The basic point I was trying to make was that there are extremists in almost every belief system, and those that can attain positions of power are the greatest danger. Their acts often cast their belief systems in a bad light.

 

Yes, extremists are usually (thankfully) in the minority, but they can often persuade many others to join their cause. Hitler is a prime example of this. Bin Laden is in danger of becoming another, because he has managed to rally many sympathisers to his cause.

 

I personally don't think that Bin Laden is using his religion as a mask to perpetrate evil. I think he truly believes that what he is doing is justified - like the majority of tyrants and fanatics through history. They take their beliefs to the extreme, and block out anything that does not fit within their own interpretations.

 

I don't think anyone can commit such atrocities as we have seen this week without truly believing that what they are doing is justified. This is why they are fanatics, and I'm not trying to defend their actions in any way. It does not excuse what they do, and it certainly should not lead to the persecution of an entire belief system.

 

Those who have been calling for the total eradication of the Middle East, however, could also be considered extremists. My point was that we should be looking very carefully at how we deal with such people - or they could fuel the fires by commiting atrocities against the entire belief system they believe is responsible - not only abroad, but in our own countries. They could potentially push us into a continuing spiral of retribution, action and reaction, which will solve nothing.

 

As I said before, no one wins a war - they only pay the price of war.

[Guest Kurgan]

I disagree, at least the impression I got from skimming the supposed terrorists "manuals" of Bin Laden's (from the smokinggun.com) he is trying to justify his position and using his interpretation of Islam as the rallying point.

 

There is an instance (I should get an exact quote later) where he basically says that he contacted certain Muslim scholars to research if terrorist acts were morally acceptable, he then used their findings to try to explain how he felt terrorism was justified.

 

So in other words, he came across as an Apologist for terrorism.

 

As in: We're terrorist, but we also want to be good Muslims.. is the stuff in the religion okay? (or can we MAKE it fit to our agenda)

 

As opposed to: We're Muslims, and since we believe our religion, we have to become terrorists.

 

Is that a fair comparison? Perhaps later (or if somebody else wants to go ahead) I'll post the article and we can look at some of it together.

 

But again, I got the impression that Bin Laden just wants to be considered a Muslim, while still doing his terrorist acts. But in addition, he is trying to unite Muslims in his cause.

 

Of course the point is that if he appears to be a "bad" Muslim then what Muslim is going to want to follow him? The religion would be used as a hook to get other Muslims to agree with him.

 

Of course it's important to note that many (if not most) Muslims appear to disagree with him now anyway, so it won't do much good...

 

This is much in the way as I see white Supremecist "Christian" groups being denounced by mainstream Christian leadership in the past. The racist groups try to justify their racism by arguing with the theology, while the other groups take the theology and explain that the racist group is wrong and they disagree.

 

Sure it might just be a matter of opinion (how would you prove which group was right?) but the con (the side against racism/terrorism) is in the majority, so it tends to represent the dominant view.

 

So Bin Laden, if he wants to rule the Muslim world, would need to convince a LOT of people, or else change his views to the dominant view (which would mean giving up terrorism).

 

That's how I see it.. and I'm getting sorta tired, so I apologize if I seem lazy. ; p

 

Kurgan

[Wilhuf]

I don't subscribe to this 'spiral of violence' theory for major international wars. Perhaps for post-WWII LICs (Low Intensity Conflicts), one observes cyclical violence, but the rules are different in major international warfare. The stakes are much higher.

 

If the Al Qaeda terror network is forcefully 'torn down' as Colin Powell puts it, that is the end of Bin-Laden as a meaningful security threat. At least until the next copycat, who also just happens to have amassed a $300 million warchest, a 50,000 man army, and a fanatical will and means to do harm, pops up. I think Bin-Laden is a fairly rare breed, so I'm optimistic that the spiral will be broken.

 

While its true that resentment is an inevitable result of war, resentment without the actual means of exacting revenge is simply ineffective emotion, and is not an actual physical threat. While we must take steps to deter terrorism, we must not ourselves succumb to fear that our efforts will fail in the long run.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

StormHammer, I think your warning to stay on the "middle ground" and not follow extremes is a fair one. I say this assuming the two extremes are a) bin Laden, we do not want an increasing number of Muslims to support and fight with him based on a defense of their religion b) Bigots on our side, we do not want US citizens or other peoples of the world to act out against others based on their Islamic faith alone. If you mean instead that one of the extremes is any act of war by the US against terrorist groups then I would not support your statement (it is clear we need to kill someone). I'm fairly sure you mean only the A and B I listed, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The extremists have throughout history been able to gain much support, you are right it certainly can be done. That being said, we are currently trying to gauge the extent to which many Muslims might be willing to join bin Laden.

 

Wilhuf raise an interesting point. It was mentioned that the people who resent the US (largely Muslims as the case my be) were not a physical threat if they had no means to express this. I worry that while it is possible that they will be denied a convential national vehicle for attack that they could just join up with bin Laden. I'm sure he would love to put them to good use and they could very much be a physical threat.

 

If your comment was made with the assumption that bin Laden's organization would be dead, I think that depends on how easily you think it can be broken. I personally do not share the your view on that, at least how you phrased it; I will definitely get to that in another post. In either case I think you must assume that the bring down of his organization is going to take quite a lot of time.

 

It is during this time that we need to consider the danger of those who could flock to his cause and be used against us.

 

What I'm trying to judge is the how the resent of many Muslims or Arabs in certain parts of the world towards the US stacks up against the willingness to actually act on it. It is venting or a real commitment to fight? I'm not talking about those who clearly make resentful comments that pledge a jihad against the US and it's allies that would conduct a war against terrorism. I wonder instead about the many people who say that the US had it coming, or that warn against a jihad but don't mention their participation in it (as well as numerous other responses).

 

I think we call all agree that regardless of what bin Laden's real reasons are for using Islam as a rallying point, it's still being used, with some dangerous implications.

 

There are so many other things I wanted to comment on by sleep wins this round.

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Krayt Tion:

<STRONG>StormHammer, I think your warning to stay on the "middle ground" and not follow extremes is a fair one. I say this assuming the two extremes are a) bin Laden, we do not want an increasing number of Muslims to support and fight with him based on a defense of their religion b) Bigots on our side, we do not want US citizens or other peoples of the world to act out against others based on their Islamic faith alone. If you mean instead that one of the extremes is any act of war by the US against terrorist groups then I would not support your statement (it is clear we need to kill someone). I'm fairly sure you mean only the A and B I listed, correct me if I'm wrong.</STRONG>

 

Yes, Krayt, your A and B are exactly what I am talking about. I believe a war against terrorism, even in the idealistic sense, is justified - and indeed, it could be argued that the war has been going on for some time. I suppose it has so far been between something like the Cold War and actual military engagement.

 

Wilhuf: The cyclical effects of LICs were what I was talking about, and while these persist, the roots of terrorism will remain. The 'spiral of violence' was not meant in the context of a conventional international war, because no matter how long such a war may take, there will eventually be a victor.

 

As for resentment without the physical means of enacting revenge...there will always be physical means of revenge, even if it is a fanatic using martial arts to hijack a plane and bring it crashing down in a building. They do not need conventional weapons to attack us, as this disaster has proven. Less than 20 people have managed to kill thousands because they were willing to end their own lives in the process.

 

Having said that, I am not afraid that we will fail - I am only afraid that we will not seek other political avenues for bringing an end to terrorism.

 

Kurgan: thanks for the pointers about Bin Laden - when I have time I'll read up on that stuff. However, I still think that people willing to end their own lives in a cause must truly believe in that cause.

 

Well, work calls, so I'll speak to you all later.

[Wilhuf]

A good article in The Washington Post characterizing Afghanistan, and the potential hurdles the US and its Allies would face in assaulting it. A quick excerpt:

 

In Afghanistan, U.S. surveillance satellites will see no sizable power grids, no vast military bases, no major bridges and highway networks as targets: There are none. Special forces would land in a war zone that has changed little from the desert country of nomadic tribes and medieval-looking villages British troops invaded more than two centuries ago. Land forces, with virtually no access to local supplies, would be treading through one of the most densely mined countries on the globe amid a hostile population.

Worth a read.

[Guest Kurgan]

So Bin Laden is supposed to have 50,000 soldiers? Whoa.. that's more than I imagined, of course I hadn't read any real numbers except one article saying that "no more than 2,000 men" were seen at one time in his camps.

 

Of course I guess when you consider that they would be spread out all over the world, and a group of 11-20 could pull off a big job like the one on Sept 11.. @#$

 

We have to be ready for reprisals from his organization if Bin Laden is taken out too, I'm sure he's given his followers orders they are to follow if he's captured/killed.

 

Kurgan

[Wilhuf]

Yes, PBS Frontline indicated that CIA estimates Al Qaeda may have 50,000 members globally.

 

Now here is a very interesting article from the Washington Post about how to destroy an enemy network. Excerpt:

 

The idea that there is no end of terorrists, no way to stamp them all out, that if you kill a hundred, another hundred will spring up -- I would be very careful of that assumption. The network of people who are willing to blow themselves up has to be limited. Sure, there are sympathizers and bagmen and drivers. But the actual core network of suicide bombers is probably a much smaller population. It is also tightknit and hard to infiltrate. But it is limited. It is not obvious to me that there is an endless supply.

 

I definitely recommend the article. All kinds of interesting theories on how to go about attack a tango network.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Yeah, I read most of that stuff when I got up this morning in the Post.

 

Since apparently no one wants to continue assessing the threat from Muslims who would turn militant to defend their religion, let me comment on some things I wanted to say last night. Hide the kids, this isn't going to be a pretty assessment.

 

What this war is not:

 

A conflict where Terrorism against us will be ended after a single assassination of bin Laden. Not saying this is anyone here, but anyone hoping that after a bullet to bin Laden's head we can wrap this thing up in a nice pretty bow is in for a rude bloody awakening. We should only assume that bin Laden has given explicit instuctions as to how to continue his campaign of terror; who will take charge of what, how to access the money, maybe even what attacks to execute once he is killed.

 

Also, it should be noted that bin Laden's 300 million dollar "warchest" has not been all that's been used to finance his terrorist network and campaigns. Officials have said that peoples inn other nations are probably funneling money to Al Qaeda, other wealthy Saudis definitely are and they expect many others as are as well, as I'm sure you can imagine from a terrorist network that is 50,000 strong and stretches across dozens of suspected nations. We are going to have to weed out any national involvement with Al Qaeda as well the generous benefactors to this terror.

 

If someone wishes to buy the farm on the notion that taking out the bin Laden "node" is going to drastically cripple Al Qaeda, no one is going to stop you from pinning your hopes that high. Just be prepared to wait longer than others for the war to 'end' and expect much bloodshed in the meantime.

 

The assassination of bin Laden would be a powerful move in many American's eyes and would appease a lot of people... until these people have to be awakened by another terrorist attack because they thought killing bin Laden was a simple means to an end. Which brings me to another topic:

 

I wonder if people realize that we are not the only ones at war here. This is not a one-sided engagement, there are people, many people, that are currently involved and dedicated to quite simply killing and terrorising as many Americans as possible. They used hit and run tactics but who is to say that they run so much as to merely wait for us to strike back, afraid of our retribution? We should take comfort in the efforts being mobolized against them, but not in this author's opinion to the point where we dismiss what they danger they still present. To think that now that this sleeping giant has been aroused nothing will get through to us is a mistake. Have we become the Empire defending our inpenetrable Death Star? Vice President Cheney has told the American public that "There may be other operations that have been planned and are, in fact, in the works." Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld commented that "A terrorist can attack any time and any place using a variety of different techniques. It may be an airplane one day, it may be a ship or a subway or a car." Some of you might be painfully aware of this already, then again maybe not.

 

Some might say, "Well I don't want to worry about the risks, that would alter my way of life and the terrorists would win." I used to propagate this, until I realized that if change itself was a terrorist goal then changing we are, and they have succeeded in that area. Airline security and even funtionality, probably CIA abilities and wiretapping abilities, many more; this list it seems will continue to grow substantially. I see no point anymore in trying to deny any success at all by the terrorists on that level.

 

Last topic of this post. Anyone expecting any of this clean-cut Cruise-Missle-Launching, Perfect-Air Campaigning, Super-Minimized-Risk warfare of our last decade is going to be mighty shocked when they see our soldiers coming home in body bags.

 

The Secretary of Defense has stated that this "antiseptic warfair is not going to work against this enemy." He has also stated that American public needs to get used to the idea that "war causes causalties."

 

In terms of realistically assessing the threat to us, that's where I currently see things. I have much hope that our efforts to combat terrorism globally will succeed, but not before we take some loses heavier than what I first imagined in the process. And a long process it could be. It is helpful for me to recognize this now up front; others may have other ways of getting through things.

[StormHammer]

Yeah, Krayt...that has been my standpoint all along. A swift, full tactical response is not going to be the end of it. It may achieve some good results in the short term - hopefully bring justice to Bin Laden, for one thing. However, as I said before, it is going to take years to tear down these terrorist networks.

 

From recent news reports, they are saying that all the known camps in Afghanistan have been abandoned, and the enemy has gone to ground. Remember, this is their country, and they are very much at home in the mountains, etc., which is why they gave Russia such a bloody nose. They know the terrain in the same way that the Vietnamese knew theirs.

 

I cannot see that aerial bombardment is going to achieve much at all. It is going to need ground troops - and apparently Afghanistan is one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world. Simply navigating the terrain is going to be an arduous task.

 

And as you rightly say - even when the targets in Afghanistan are neutralised - there is a global network to deal with. Someone has estimated that there are 'sleepers' in around 60 countries worldwide, and that they have been there for a number of years.

 

I understand that a terrorist has been arrested at Heathrow airport - and he was on his way to Wales (UK). Other terrorists of this or similar groups are now understood to have been in Wales before - one learned electronics at Swansea university (about 30-40 miles from where I happen to live).

 

So these people are a lot closer to home than some people may think. Simply identifying them is going to be a major task. And that is just the Al Qeada (spelling?) network. There are many, many other terrorist organisations, and to stop them all is going to take a very long time.

 

Make no mistake - there will be more terrorist attacks in response to action taken in Afghanistan. The only questions are where and when?

[Wilhuf]

Yes, the threat still exists. US homeland defense strikes me as something of a joke. A joke utterly lacking humor. For God's sake the emergency broadcast system didn't even kick in once here in Washington last week. Rumsfeld wouldn't even answer press questions last week about what was being done in this area.

 

No, this is not a Death Star we are defending. It is our democratic way of life, to be sure.

 

I seriously doubt that improved anti-terrorist legislation and air transportation security was part of the Terror agenda. Although I agree that in effect, this will result in a reduction of our freedoms (freedom from observation). Another victim of September 11th's assault.

 

That this war is bloody was established Tuesday, by the faceless cowards to destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon, murdering thousands. To me, Tuesday was the price of complacency and half-measures. Current reports say that peoples from at least 85 countries were killed Tuesday.

 

It is doubtless there are many targets to be hit, if the Al Qaeda network, much less other known terrorist groups, is going to be neutralized. Although there is a finite, not infinite number of anti-US terrorist networks that actually have the wherewithal to harm US interests. It is possible to uncover them, and 'smoke them out.' This will not be a one-hit kill. It's going to take a lot more than that. I've been saying for awhile now that this will be a test of Allied 'intestinal fortitude.'

 

Looks like Afghanistan and Pakistan are massing troops on the boundary at the Khyber Pass.

 

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

The death star metaphor was in regard to confidence in actual security and defense, not ideological concerns as a result. I agree we are fighting to defend our democratic way of life.

 

I wasn't suggesting that those specific changes were part of the terrorist agenda, just "change itself."

 

The fact that this war is bloody can be seen at this time through the devastation we encountered on Tuesday. However, to most on that day it was just that, devastation; many people could only manage to be shocked that day. Many people were also angry, the extent of which was usually that we needed to strike back; the most important distinction to make is that anger was directed towards an enemy we all hoped could be taken out switfly and decisively for our retribution.

 

The president declared war, but on who? It was not until days after the event that people came to realize who was primarily responsible, the size of and extent to which that network could operate, and most importantly that this really is a war against those people.

 

We knew our attackers were willing to bloody us to horrifying proportions from the 9/11 attacks. We all had some sense in the initial days that our response might be bigger then we were used to or we wouldn't have discussed the use of nuclear weapons. But I don't think we really had any idea what the price would have to be for us while extracting our vengance. This was the one element missing from anyone around here's analysis of the attacks in the initial days, which is a good indicator that we didn't fully realize what a bloody war would mean for us.

 

I hadn't seen on these forums any real homage (aside from some sentiments from StormHammer) paid to the fact that we were engaging in a conflict that was going to cost a great deal of lives even while attacking. That was the nature of my post.

 

If you hear anything else about those troops near the border, drop a line.

 

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

US Intelligence tells NBC news that while the Pakistanis have moved some of their troops to borders with Afghanistan to help seal them up, the Taliban has not in fact moved their troops within 25 miles of the border which was reported earlier. For what it's worth.

[Wilhuf]

Earlier, I used 'down and dirty' as a euphemism for 'ugly ground war with the potential for US and allied losses.' I warned that civilians could be hurt. I have no illusions about any of the costs, going forward. I also harbor no illusions of the cost of doing nothing. September 11 guaranteed that much at least.

 

A BBC report from the Khyber pass this afternoon confirms that the boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not closed. Video showed cars, people and vehicles crossing from Afghanistan into Pakistan, as if it were a normal day.

 

Will be interesting to hear the 'council of elders' decision on what they are going to do with our friend Osama. Will they hand him over? Or will they hold him?

[access_flux]

originally quoted by Storm hammmer:

No - and I am not trying to diminish the scale of the human tragedy that has occured in any way. I am simply trying to point out that your previous comment does diminish the pain and suffering experienced by families who were victims of the IRA - and any other terrorist group around the world. The scale may be different - but the results are exactly the same.

As I said before, this atrocity has raised the stakes - and it may inspire other terrorist groups across the world to use similar methods in the future. Many more people will lose their lives in coming decades.

 

And in case you are interested - I am personally grieving for all of the lost lives and the pain and suffering of the families who have lost loved ones. I wept during the three minute silence held across the UK this morning.[/b]

 

 

i am not having a go at you Stormhammer but the thing is i don't think that the IRA would do something that drastic to prove a point. whats even worse is that the B*st*rds who did it haven't even owned up. chickens.

[StormHammer]

Access_Flux: Nah, I'm sorry. I took some of my anger out on you, and that wasn't fair.

 

I agree that perhaps the old IRA might not have even considered something of this scale. However, the splinter group the Real IRA could be capable of anything. I mean, when school-children in Ireland are pipe-bombed on their way to school (and this was probably done by local residents), it makes me wonder just how far these splinter groups are willing to go.

 

Lastly, please don't insult chickens. These terrorists are a whole different sub-species.

 

Wilhuf...

 

A BBC report from the Khyber pass this afternoon confirms that the boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not closed. Video showed cars, people and vehicles crossing from Afghanistan into Pakistan, as if it were a normal day.

 

Yes, I saw that report too. I am beginning to wonder if some Taliban sympathisers in Pakistan are intentionally keeping the border open - with or without the government's knowledge. They have pledged support to the US, but I think this may be a measure to partly defuse the situation with Taliban sympathisers in Pakistan.

 

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: StormHammer ]

 

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: StormHammer ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Saying that the war would be 'down and dirty' is a far cry from any real demonstration acknowledging the loss of human life we would have on our side. No one had posted in any detail their concerns for what we would have to endure on our side. We were mainly focused on discussing an appropriate response and who we needed to give it to. Not what it was going to cost us in the process. Thus, as those things we were traditionally discussing became more clear it was time for a post reflecting at length and in detail things people here might not have realized about the cost of this war. Afterall, there was no indication by means of a post dedicated to the subject that people knew the extent to which this thing could cost us. You might have 'known' it all along, fine, but you sure didn't post much about it. I don't mean for this to degenerate into a I Care More or I Always Knew The Implications From The Very First Explosion type of discussion. I shant debate this any longer.

 

I never said the border was sealed, I said that troops where being sent there to do it, I guess they haven't. Was border lock down one of our requests, or was it a gesture the Pakistani's offered to us? Either way it apparently isn't getting done. If this is a measure to partially appease the Taliban as you suggest StormHammer, Pakistan must know that if the US does end up attacking Afghanistan the Taliban will declare a jihad against them for supporting the US (if they allow US planes in their airspace, troops in their nation, etc, thereby indirectly helping the US attack). Those open borders might be letting Taliban supporters into Pakistan and that could come back to haunt them. Not that Pakistan wouldn't have enough domestic problems already if the US attacked. Still, there is no sense in not taking steps to prevent a war when the Verdict Is Not In on bin Laden.

 

Speaking of which, this council of Islamic elders is going to be one hung jury. From what I've read it seems unlikely that they will turn him over. They have stated they would need "proof" before they ever turned him over. I only wonder if any proof much less words from the mouths of us Americans would even be considered anything but heresy to these people. If it was the Pakistanis that presented some evidence to them the other day instead, when they requested that he be turned over, it might fair better for us.

[StormHammer]

Krayt, I don't disagree with you about the border issue: we can only speculate about why they haven't closed it yet. What aroused my suspicions, however, was the fact that the BBC news reporter (in the second report I saw) asked the official at the border why he saw oil trucks and other supplies being driven into Afghanistan. He did not get a satisfactory answer.

 

Which led me to speculate that Taliban sympathisers in Pakistan were trying to help the Taliban - or that someone higher up is trying to soften the blow against Pakistan when Jihad is officially declared against it.

 

The key thing to remember is, that although the Pakistani government is offering unstinting support - when the first US and allied troops actually set foot in Pakistan, they are going to be met with a great deal of hostility (and probably violence) from Taliban sympathisers within Pakistan.

 

No doubt someone in authority has already taken measures to deal with such an eventuality.

 

As for obtaining proof against Bin Laden and whoever else is behind all of this - I don't think they will ever get 100 per cent proof of guilt. Only people within the terrorist network know where the orders came from - and I can't see any of them pointing fingers at anyone within their ranks. Even if they are threatened with death, they are unlikely to co-operate, because they are willing to give up their lives for their cause.

[Wilhuf]

I disagree that US forces entering Pakistan will be first met with hostility. BBC TV reports are indicating that Taliban support in Pakistan is not widespread, but rather concentrated in certain regions. It could be that American Forces would be greeted with cooperation and assistance.

[StormHammer]

Wilhuf...I really hope you are right, and there will be no major incidents.

 

I did not mean to infer that as soon as they set foot in Pakistan they will immediately meet with resistance. I am sure that the majority of people will indeed greet them warmly.

 

However, I think that in a short period of time, once the Jihad is declared, the Taliban sympathisers will start to rally, and will try to cause trouble - especially if there are trained 'sleeper' terrorists in their midst.

 

All I am saying is that the troops need to be prepared for any eventuality - as I'm sure they will be.

[Wilhuf]

I hope so too Stormhammer. I have some kind of strange hope that, if there is a ground assault, that US forces can drop in, bag the guy, and get out. Fast and overwhelming enough that would-be jihadists wont have time to resist in a meaningful way. So quickly that by the time anyone can rally against the attack, it will be over and done. In effect, presented with a fait accompli. That would be the best case scenario. Of course that also leaves the Pakistani government to deal with the fallout. The consequence of hosting these Taliban schools.

 

This is a possibility if the Allies determine not to eliminiate Taliban altogether, and the engagement is really limited to just destroying Al Qaeda.

 

It probably won't happen quite so neatly. Al Qaeda won't be loitering around in convenient little bases, waiting to be picked up. It's going to be a bug hunt. We shouldn't underestimate the enemy, but at the same time, overestimating their capabilities doesn't help either. The Taliban doesn't field an organized army as such. The Post alleges there are dozens of warlords in Afghanistan who would be more than happy to collect the $5MM bounty on Bin-Laden's head. Taliban has no airforce. Its army is more like a militia. BBC reports that Taliban's own own leadership is fleeing Kabul.

 

According to BBC many thousands of civilians have left Afghanistan earlier this summer not because of impending US attacks but because Taliban has taken to killing civilians. Domestic support in Afgahnistan for the Taliban is far from rock-solid.

 

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Kurgan]

As promised, here is TSG link to the Bin Laden documents (which I have only skimmed, I admit).

 

But especially the "murder by the book" is very interesting.

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/binladen/binladen.shtml

 

Kurgan