|
SedanChair posted:Incorrect, AQ knew that the US would over-commit. They certainly didn't expect them to up stakes and leave. I doubt there was 9 dimensional chess going on - it was a high profile act of terror so Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri could put themselves on the world stage - they had no idea what would happen next, they just wanted to start a fight that they hoped would end with a new Caliphate. It was delusions of grandeur coming from their 'defeat' of the Soviet Union.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
suboptimal posted:When you're off probation, I'd love to hear about your rich experience in conflict zones. And once he's paid his 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Peel posted:'The Syrian government winning is the least bad feasible outcome' is a defensible opinion that you can hold without committing yourself to imaginary helicopters and conspiracy theories. Here's the thing- what does either side "winning" look like? Even if Assad manages to decisively crush the insurgency, how can he effectively govern the rest of the country? What happens to all of the refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan- given that all of those camps are the recruitment centers for the rebels, how will the government treat those who come back to Syria? At what point do Russia and Iran get sick of bankrolling Syria's reconstruction, because the West probably isn't going to dump money into the government that they've spent the past three years trying to see overthrown? If the rebels win, what does that look like? Islamic or civil state? How do they even begin to balance the conflicting and contradictory aspirations of certain elements of the insurgency? Do we see ISIS versus the rest of the insurgency all over again, except on a much larger scale? I'm not calling you out here or demanding answers, I'm just opining that the situation is so hosed that it's hard to conceive of what "victory" looks like for any party in this conflict.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Has the use of chemical weapons significantly changed the conflict? If no chemical weapons were available in the country would this have much effect on casualty figures and composition, the humanitarian crisis, and so on? I have no idea if those questions are answerable right now, but I'm thinking, this need to prove that the other guys used the weapons ironically stems from accepting the mass media narrative that chemical weapons are anathema, an ultimate crime, an automatic disqualifier for anyone's support. Rather than just a change in the shape of the horror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Yeah no way Al-qaeda would provoke the US into a messy war in the middle east. Al-Qaeda was founded to get the U.S. to leave the Middle East. Also if that's a reference to the Iraq war: The U.S. invasion had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, since they weren't even present in the country. SedanChair posted:Incorrect, AQ knew that the US would over-commit. They certainly didn't expect them to up stakes and leave. Somalians were able to get the U.S. to leave when they shot down that helicopter. Those Rwandans who killed those Belgian peacekeepers were able to get all the peacekeepers to leave as well. Also I doubt they really believed 9/11 would cause the death of 3,000 people, unless they had actually planned that those buildings would collapse. Pieter Pan fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
OBAMA CURES ALAWIS posted:Awfully defensive aren't we? Am I supposed to be impressed you're a blogger who flies around Europe on Ryanair? Careful, don't break the bank checking your luggage! Europe still isn't Syria, a place you've never been. Too dangerous and unseemly for someone as important as yourself. I love how retards like this guy operate in this delusional filter of reality where despite the piles of evidence (often provided by the Syrian government/news agencies, and its defectors) that: 1. Syrian government prisons are basically assembly lines of torture and execution for anyone that's given the Mukhabarat the slightest reason to doubt their loyalty. 2. That because of it's doctrine and equipment being poorly suited for urban COIN operations, that the SAA's strategy is to basically shell the crap out of any area that gives them a bit of difficulty. 3. Mounting equipment losses making combat operations more difficult, and therefore the SAA literally doesn't have the flexibility to do much else. 4. That the SAA doesn't give a poo poo about civilian casualties, and in fact at times goes out of its way to cause them (bombing those bread lines for instance in Aleppo). That somehow, despite the fact that the "Lion of Syria" and his forces operating with a massive, callous disregard for human life and wanton destruction, these morons think that CW usage would be beyond them because it would be a war crime or something. You know, the things that they commit on a daily basis on a routine, ongoing basis. It's mind boggling that they are so delusional that the well-documented reality that the government used chemical weapons (probably because some high ranking official got pretty antsy about the Presidential Palace almost being in artillery range) is less plausible to these scum than the fanciful scenario of "Evil rebels stole/developed/were gifted a bunch of sarin and then decided to use it on their own forward positions for Reasons." Reasons generally of course being that they want to provoke NATO into an intervention, but for some reason decided to half-rear end their false flag. gently caress, if my plan was to bring in outside intervention by using CW, I'd toss that poo poo around like Oprah handing out keys to new cars, not "Well we gave it a good shot, let's not try this for another year, then only use it to gas our own positions, again, in small, isolated incidents. Surely that will bring the Western Imperialists in!" Peel posted:Has the use of chemical weapons significantly changed the conflict? If no chemical weapons were available in the country would this have much effect on casualty figures and composition, the humanitarian crisis, and so on? Basically this. There's isn't nearly as much effort on the part of Assadists to deny (or even justify) the existence of Assad's torture prisons, for instance. Vernii fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Libya's new interim PM just quit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Pieter posted:
I don't understand what you mean by this, isn't it obvious that sending planes into buildings would make them collapse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
cafel posted:Haha, so JAN is involved in the Syrian Civil War because it's part of a long con to try to draw the US military into the conflict so that they can fight them? And this involves attacking themselves with chemical weapons from helicopters they don't have? Well when you put it that way it seems so obvious, I can't believe I fell for the corrupt imperialist narrative. No, I didn't write any of that, and I don't think any of that. Pieter posted:Al-Qaeda was founded to get the U.S. to leave the Middle East. Also if that's a reference to the Iraq war: The U.S. invasion had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, since they weren't even present in the country. This is true, but bin Laden was quite content to get the US to bleed itself dry in expensive wars, just like the Soviets did. "All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." -bin Laden. He said something more than this in one of his speeches I think, but I can't find that right now. My comment was not meant to imply that al-Nursa or any other group in Syria is trying to do this. You said in the post that al-Qaeda wasn't interested in a US intervention in Syria, because of who they were. I meant to say that al-Qaeda is actually extremely interested in such things, though not necessarily Syria specifically. farraday posted:Tell me Count Roland exactly how a chlorine bomb is going to do that when the sarin attacks you're still just asking questions about didn't manage it? I guess you have some sort of similar beef but your post is incomprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:No, I didn't write any of that, and I don't think any of that. AQ is already there and we aren't racing there. Try and use your brain for once instead of just regurgitating everything hersh types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I don't understand what you mean by this, isn't it obvious that sending planes into buildings would make them collapse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
farraday posted:AQ is already there and we aren't racing there. Try and use your brain for once instead of just regurgitating everything hersh types. You've been quite consistent as one of the worst posters here. The weirdos on both sides can be tools but at least make some sort of point. You just mis-read stuff then bitch about it. content, and sorry for crapping up the thread: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/iraq-secular-attack-elections-maliki.html Secular parties in Iraq have a tough time before the elections. Not that really anybody is having an easy time in Iraq these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
quote:"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." -bin Laden. He said something more than this in one of his speeches I think, but I can't find that right now. That quote is from 2004, when what Bin Laden described is exactly what happened. Al-Qaeda was founded with the demands to get the U.S. to pull their troops from Saudi-Arabia and to stop their support for Israel. Later there were several 'peace proposals' made by their leadership, saying that terrorist attacks would stop if the U.S. pulled their troops from all 'Muslim countries'. Kurtofan posted:I don't understand what you mean by this, isn't it obvious that sending planes into buildings would make them collapse? Well, that's not what those firemen who went up there believed. The Pentagon was also hit, not with the intention to make it collapse, but simply to cause damage and total chaos. I doubt that those terrorists knew that those buildings would actually collapse. Pieter Pan fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:You've been quite consistent as one of the worst posters here. The weirdos on both sides can be tools but at least make some sort of point. You just mis-read stuff then bitch about it. Let me quote the discussion since you're illiterate. Idiot 1: Because you know, it's totally impossible for JAN to use chlorine, like, totes ever. Guy: Why would they? It's already quite certain nobody will invade Syria to help them out. Also I doubt Al-Qaeda (JAN) was truly ever interested in U.S. presence. Because it's, you know, Al Qaeda. You: Yeah no way Al-qaeda would provoke the US into a messy war in the middle east. Everyone: that makes no loving sense. You: Oh yeah well Bin Laden said "All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." -bin Laden.  Your unquestionable logic. JAN instituted a false flag attack to get the US to invade Syria in support of JAN because, as this bin laden quote shows, anywhere AQ shows up the US will chase them. except this is about the claim this was a false flag attack which means JAN, as your putative attacker, is hiding the fact they did it because they didn't want the US to know. All this despite the fact that according to your logic AQ behind behind the attack would be necessary for a reason for US to bomb Syria. Use your brain for once instead of just posting "Oh yeah? Well 9/11!" Thanks for calling me a terrible poster though, from you that's pretty much a book cover recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
So not only do JAN have helicopters, but they use them for launching false flag attacks on their own support base instead of just using them to attack Assad's forces? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:So not only do JAN have helicopters, but they use them for launching false flag attacks on their own support base instead of just using them to attack Assad's forces? On a town where the Syrian military had been firing cluster rockets and dropping barrel bombs for week, even being the first place they used BM-30 multiple rocket launchers in the entire conflict.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
They're smarter than I gave them credit for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
farraday posted:Your unquestionable logic. JAN instituted a false flag attack to get the US to invade Syria in support of JAN because, as this bin laden quote shows, anywhere AQ shows up the US will chase them. except this is about the claim this was a false flag attack which means JAN, as your putative attacker, is hiding the fact they did it because they didn't want the US to know. All this despite the fact that according to your logic AQ behind behind the attack would be necessary for a reason for US to bomb Syria. You're a bad poster because you're conflating his posts with other people's. Nowhere in the last two pages does he say these things. Actually go read his posts, someone else makes the claims you think Roland is making. I'm not on Hersh's conspiracy train, I'm not defending that poo poo. But you're actually deciding what Roland means from posts that don't say what you think they do. His only point has to do with whether AQ would try to draw the West into a conflict. That may be a stepping stone to the Hersh conspiracy theory, but he doesn't make that step. Cafel and you both did this, deciding that questioning one thing means supporting an entire conspiracy theory. Bullshit posting, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Milovan Drecun posted:You're a bad poster because you're conflating his posts with other people's. Nowhere in the last two pages does he say these things. Actually go read his posts, someone else makes the claims you think Roland is making. I'm not on Hersh's conspiracy train, I'm not defending that poo poo. But you're actually deciding what Roland means from posts that don't say what you think they do. His only point has to do with whether AQ would try to draw the West into a conflict. That may be a stepping stone to the Hersh conspiracy theory, but he doesn't make that step. Cafel and you both did this, deciding that questioning one thing means supporting an entire conspiracy theory. Bullshit posting, frankly. Thank for visiting the thread. So your defense is that he made a completely off topic reply. Everyone else is talking about the Chlorine bombing and he just brings up 9/11 because it is relevant in no way and that's how he rolls. The thing he's responding to is solely "I doubt AQ is interested in the US involvement" a quote that could be backed up form numerous sources when it looked like the US was getting involved and they were against it because they assumed it was a pretext to attack AQ And the response to that is "Yeah well, 9/11 "Good job that's somehow more stupid. farraday fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
I deserve the condescension, I guess, because I did call you a bad poster. Sorry! But you can't just make up his argument for him. If you disagree with his assertion, as you do in the edit, that's fine. But why make poo poo up about what he said? It just doesn't do anything and leads to a bunch of piling on. I'll end my stupid derail now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Milovan Drecun posted:You're a bad poster because you're conflating his posts with other people's. Nowhere in the last two pages does he say these things. Actually go read his posts, someone else makes the claims you think Roland is making. I'm not on Hersh's conspiracy train, I'm not defending that poo poo. But you're actually deciding what Roland means from posts that don't say what you think they do. His only point has to do with whether AQ would try to draw the West into a conflict. That may be a stepping stone to the Hersh conspiracy theory, but he doesn't make that step. Cafel and you both did this, deciding that questioning one thing means supporting an entire conspiracy theory. Bullshit posting, frankly. Thank-you, for reading what I write instead of arguing with what you think I meant. I don't buy Hersh's stuff either, not without a truck load of evidence that it would take to back it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Or it was abundantly clear that bombing Syria would set off World War 3? If Assad wanted to pick a provocative date, that's as good of one as any. However leaders of client states have completely misread the mood of their patrons before. Diem figured that being anticommunist would be enough to cause the US to ignore all the violent religious repression. Hussein thought the US was willing to ignore a small border dispute between him and the Kuwaiti government. Assad using chemical weapons on civilians makes him at least as much a liability. If he dies of an allergic reaction to falling face-first on an AK-47 full of bullets, nobody in Moscow's going to mind so long as the witnesses to such a tragedy want to maintain close ties. What they're not going to do is pull all the stops out and risk World War 3 if he doesn't offer something irreplaceable that nobody else could. Taking money to permit a naval base and then giving it back to pay for a smorgasbord of crap the patron doesn't want anymore is par for the course. I think that Obama is like other presidents in that he'd rather have pro-American governments in the Middle East all else being equal. However he's not interested in remaking the region in his image so much as letting things play out, intervening very judiciously and not burning any bridges. Part of being judicious is working within the constraints of domestic and international support. With Libya the international support was strong enough that even if he didn't have domestic support, the rest of NATO would be able to carry it through. With Syria everyone is in agreement that what's happening right now is terrible but nothing's getting through the security council, the rest of NATO is less interested in what would be a much larger commitment (especially without US support) and anything past a month puts him into conflict with Congress over the War Powers Act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
The French were on board for an intervention, and Erdogan seems all-in (what state's agency do you think has been leaking these calls? Funny how similar things happened to US diplomats talking to Kyiv politicians). The UK getting cold feet put the brakes on things. Vlad is asserting himself on the world stage, using whatever definition of 'legitimate government' suits his purposes. I would not be surprised to one day learn he made direct threats against intervention behind the scenes. I don't think President Romney would have shown the same restraint.
Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Are you implying it was Russia that captured and leaked the calls made my Erdogan and the US diplomats?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Are you implying it was Russia that captured and leaked the calls made my Erdogan and the US diplomats? They seem be the likely culprit in Ukraine; Turkey is a bit more iffy but it's not like intelligence agencies providing technology and expertise is a foreign concept to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They seem be the likely culprit in Ukraine; Turkey is a bit more iffy but it's not like intelligence agencies providing technology and expertise is a foreign concept to this thread. Yeah Turkey is a bit of a stretch but not impossible. Pulling something like that against a NATO member is fairly big. On the other hand Erdogan is a rather controversial figure lately and isn't really best buds with... much of anyone at this point. If this were happening I'd imagine there'd be additional motives than just Syria alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Why do the rebels keep gassing themselves, why don't they fire them once against Assad's forces? I never get a clear answer to this question from the false flag activists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Mans posted:Why do the rebels keep gassing themselves, why don't they fire them once against Assad's forces? They didn't have enough fuel for the helicopter, so they settled for the next best thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
I go one step further and ask what exactly is stopping the U.S. or France from just coming out and supporting Assad if it's the rebels using the chemical weapons. If Russia is so keen on proving it's not the Syrian Gov't using them, wouldn't they feel even more emboldened in their fight with Western support behind them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Lead Psychiatry posted:I go one step further and ask what exactly is stopping the U.S. or France from just coming out and supporting Assad if it's the rebels using the chemical weapons. He's a mass murdering dictator who runs one of the most sickeningly repressive regimes in history and Hezbollah are considered terrorists by the US and EU, and they killed hundreds of Americans in 1983. So no even if all the evidence pointing at Assad/Hezbollah turned out to be wrong that wouldn't cause any western states to support Assad or Hezbollah. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
And yet the U.S. had no problem sending people to Syria to get tortured and using that repressive regime for its own aims. And Syrian intelligence have given warnings about potential attacks in the past. So it's not like any degree of cooperation would be some breath of fresh air. Not to mention the huge amount of face saving it'd have given Obama after that whole Red Line declaration. Even without actively supporting Assad, simply not blaming him for the chemical attacks would say quite a bit about this false flag claim that's becoming all the rage. Yet the U.S. still holds the belief Assad's forces were responsible. Lead Psychiatry fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Yes and the US armed the Contras so they're definitely going to arm Hezbollah next.  quote:Even without actively supporting Assad, simply not blaming him for the chemical attacks would say quite a bit about this false flag claim that's becoming all the rage. Yet the U.S. still holds the belief Assad's forces were responsible. You should email the Whitehouse some links to the opinion pieces that are "all the rage." It would be awful if they had to rely on intelligence agencies or detailed analysis of trajectories, soil samples and all the footage of Assad/Hezbollah using identical looking munitions that Brown Moses put together. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Yes and the US armed the Contras so they're definitely going to arm Hezbollah next. Calm, Sparky. I'm not arguing that the Rebels actually used the chemical weapons. I'm arguing against the False Flag claims. As in I have not only asked why the Rebels won't gas Assad's troops (As Mans has said), I go one step further and also ask why the very countries who blame Assad's forces for the CW attacks don't just blame the Rebels or specific groups. Allowing Obama to back out of the Red Line comment without losing face and coming off as a coward and providing support and not necessarily of the armed or any kind of material variety since they have an interest in not seeing these groups succeed in any way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Mans posted:Why do the rebels keep gassing themselves, why don't they fire them once against Assad's forces? Really? I don't know, why have their been countless incidences of "rebels" beheading each other rather than focusing on Assad? I mean I don't have much an opinion about the who did what of the chemical attacks, but the rebels are hardly a cohesive group and it's certainly not Totally Impossible for one group to figure they can attack both enemies at the same time by gassing a rival group and making it look like Assad did it. Absolute certainty is nearly always a mistaken position. There was a time in D and D where suggesting Iraq had no WMD would get you laughed out of the thread, after all. Peel posted:Has the use of chemical weapons significantly changed the conflict? If no chemical weapons were available in the country would this have much effect on casualty figures and composition, the humanitarian crisis, and so on? It's a rounding error in terms of causalities- a couple conventional bombs would have been equally effective if killing is your goal. Even if terror is your goal there's plenty of weapons that can accomplish it while not provoking the same response- see Israel and WP. Your second point is spot on- the weapons are a "red line" because we say they are. Why so much focus on weapons that have caused less than a tenth of a percent of the total deaths? To me "Assad has killed 130,000 people and tortured countless more" is a hell of a lot more reason to assist than "Assad used some evil weapons that maybe killed a thousand people".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Lead Psychiatry posted:Calm, Sparky. I'm not arguing that the Rebels actually used the chemical weapons. I'm arguing against the False Flag claims. As in I have not only asked why the Rebels won't gas Assad's troops (As Mans has said), I go one step further and also ask why the very countries who blame Assad's forces for the CW attacks don't just blame the Rebels or specific groups. Allowing Obama to back out of the Red Line comment without losing face and coming off as a coward and providing support and not necessarily of the armed or any kind of material variety since they have an interest in not seeing these groups succeed in any way. Back out? If there was the slightest shred of evidence that terrorist groups had chemical weapons, there would be way more of a push to intervene. In terms of international relations, nobody really cares if a state actor gasses people as long as they keep it inside their own borders and don't get caughf killing any citizens of Western countries. Assad isn't going to be setting off satin bombs in London or anything. If the rebels had chemical weapons, though, that would be a huge loving deal that couldn't possibly be allowed to go without reprisal, especially since some of them are regional terrorist militias with only tenous ties to Syria and the possibility of expanding to other countries or operations. The US cannot tolerate independent Islamist forces with terrorist roots possessing chemical weapons, and I'd wager Europe wouldn't either. Assad is harmless to the West; the rebels potentially aren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Back out? If there was the slightest shred of evidence that terrorist groups had chemical weapons, there would be way more of a push to intervene. In terms of international relations, nobody really cares if a state actor gasses people as long as they keep it inside their own borders and don't get caughf killing any citizens of Western countries. Assad isn't going to be setting off satin bombs in London or anything. If the rebels had chemical weapons, though, that would be a huge loving deal that couldn't possibly be allowed to go without reprisal, especially since some of them are regional terrorist militias with only tenous ties to Syria and the possibility of expanding to other countries or operations. The US cannot tolerate independent Islamist forces with terrorist roots possessing chemical weapons, and I'd wager Europe wouldn't either. Assad is harmless to the West; the rebels potentially aren't. I agree with what you're saying, I just don't know if it'd really have much of an impact in reality. The American people are tired of war and hearing a rehash of the "They have ___ weapons! We must act!" likely won't get much support, evidence or no. Cause, well, false flag claims either way. Which is why I bring up the whole support Assad in my theoretical scenario. Don't have to give him high tech weaponry (Israel would bitch even if the Syrian gov't could use them for whatever legitimate reason), Russia can continue supplying small arms, U.S. supplies intel or the same kind of non-lethal aid the Rebels got before the chemical attacks. Also slap Assad on the back and do a paraphrase of the "fight them there instead of here" bit. Or again, just not blame him IF his forces were in fact not responsible for the CW attacks. Lead Psychiatry fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:With Libya the international support was strong enough that even if he didn't have domestic support, the rest of NATO would be able to carry it through. That's not exactly true, NATO (particularly France if I remember right) ran into the same problem the Israelis did in 73 where they barely had enough munitions and stores to last a couple weeks. Without the US doing a lot of the bombing it would have taken longer than it did. The will might have been there from France and the UK but they couldn't really operate at the tempo the US could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Assad isn't going to be setting off satin bombs in London or anything. Of course not. Does he want to get Savile Row on his case? Besides, that would just provide a casus belli for use of the THE MOST HORRIBLE WEAPON KNOWN TO MAN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I don't understand what you mean by this, isn't it obvious that sending planes into buildings would make them collapse? Bin Laden is quoted on video as saying that he did not think the entire buildings would collapse, but he thought the upper levels of the buildings might collapse. Clearly his knowledge of static vs dynamic loading was not real great, cause if the upper levels failed it stands to reason the lower levels would also fail. That said, it was a surprise to him, and he probably had the best construction engineering knowledge of the 9/11 planners. It wasn't obvious to anyone that crashing a plane into a building would result in its collapse, because the only other incident that I can recall of a "large" plane crashing into a skyscraper was the 1945 accident where a B-25 hit the Empire State Building. This resulted in only minor damage to the building, but a B-25 is only like a tenth of the weight of a 767, so it's not very comparable to what happened on 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
forgot my pants posted:Bin Laden is quoted on video as saying that he did not think the entire buildings would collapse, but he thought the upper levels of the buildings might collapse. Clearly his knowledge of static vs dynamic loading was not real great, cause if the upper levels failed it stands to reason the lower levels would also fail. That said, it was a surprise to him, and he probably had the best construction engineering knowledge of the 9/11 planners. I'd assume that if they didn't collapse the extent of damage was such that they would have had to be brought down. I can't really imagine the logistics of having to deal with the two tallest buildings in NY with floors and floors of debris falling constantly. Plus the public desire to look for bodies/survivors in a crippled building. And then having to deal with some type of controlled collapse. The towers collapsing as they did was probably a blessing in disguise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:48
|
|
