Peter Cairns Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Looking back to before Sept 11th, Bin Laden had already tried to attack the Twin towers once. Why the same target again, what made it so key. well one possibility is money, or "it's the economy stupid". If you look at their targets not from a human but an economic perspective, they have been trying to undermine economies. Kenya, Indonesia, Egypt, all had attacks on tourists, but all were pro western Islamic countries with Tourism orientated economies that went down the tube. Look now at attacks on oil facilities, not just in Iraq and now Saudi, but also Islamic involvement in Nigeria. Add the economic impact of the current cost of oil to the running cost of the war on terror, and you get a picture where "IF" their long term objectve is to undermine us economically, then they have done a damned good job so far. If it is economic, then we could be fighting the wrong war...... Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: [QB] Looking back to before Sept 11th, Bin Laden had already tried to attack the Twin towers once. Why the same target again, what made it so key. well one possibility is money, or "it's the economy stupid". If you look at their targets not from a human but an economic perspective, they have been trying to undermine economies. Kenya, Indonesia, Egypt, all had attacks on tourists, but all were pro western Islamic countries with Tourism orientated economies that went down the tubes. Look now at attacks on oil facilities, not just in Iraq and now Saudi, but also Islamic involvement in Nigeria. Add the economic impact of the current cost of oil to the running cost of the war on terror, and you get a picture where "IF" their long term objectve is to undermine us economically, then they have done a damned good job so far. If it is economic, then we could be fighting the wrong war...... What has this got to do with CM:SF, well this, It might be that from an economic perspective that the cost of the US invading Syria might motivate them to give the US a reason. i.e. "Lets give the US some proof and a good reason to invade and pull them in to fighting on a third multi-billion dollar front, I know lets blow up some Lebonese politicians" Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 soory ment to edit and qouted myself. it's midnight here I am off to bed. Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: If it is economic, then we could be fighting the wrong war...Of course, the terrs reserve to themselves the right to redefine what the war is about until they find something they stand a cat in hell's chance of winning. But if it is economic, they are doing a spectacularly poor job, and I knownpeople who could do better on a long weekend with a dozen good blokes and a half-tonne of PE. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 This is skating the line of being a political thread, but good points. In this paradigm, or any other, I wouldn't say the terrorists are winning. Problem is, I don't think we are winning, either. Seems like current events are pretty much a lose-lose for all concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I think AQ is also oriented to going after symbolic targets. Whether cleverly or not, they are engaged in psychological warfare. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 If you're wondering about terrorist tactics all you have to do is look back 100 years to the largely forgotten 'anarchist' threat. Terrorist bombings, assasinations, sabotage, riots, etc. Thier idea was that the whole social edifice was rotten to the core and had to be pulled down. An anarchist bullet in Serbia eventually brought about the carnage of WWI which, coincidentally, did indeed bring about the collapse of much of the old European social order. --- Immediately after 9/11 we were doing what I must admit was an absolutely fantastic job against the Al Qaeda crimnals, initially. We literally mobilized the entire world on our side. Quickly took out their bases in Afghanistan, ran them to ground, chased down their financial links, cut their communications. Everything was going in the right direction. Then... for reasons I still cannot fathom to this day...we abruptly stopped the good fight and turned our attentions to the entirely unrelated topic of Iraq. Blunder then folllowed embarrassing blunder. The Iraq invasion and its aftermath has been used as a recruiting poster for militants worldwide ever since, in much the same way that lurid posters of Germans abusing Belgian nuns in WWI filled English and French recruiting stations with volunteers. If we are losing the overall 'war against terror' its obvious the blame can be entirely layed at the feet of you-know-who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Economic War is the only war, the Soviets didn't just give capitalism as chance because they wanted to, they did it because they were bankrupt by the cold war. now the only issue i have with terrist conducting a Economic war, is they will lose, sure they can attack oil supply lines and force prices up, and make the odd attack like 9/11, but they can't do a full scale economic war because, it would revert into a reverse iron curtain, where the west would shut up shop against terrist aligned nations, with a trade and travel barrier, which would hurt them alot more then us. but bin laden has done a economic befoe against russia where i read he once said "We bled Russia for ten years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat" and also The October video, released just before the U.S. election, offers a glimpse into the jihadist strategy. "We are continuing in the same policy to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy," said bin Laden. but as others have pointed out AQ best bet is psychological warfare. they just don't have the funds or manpower to do full scale Economic warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Peter did you check any economic indicators before posting that? I know the American economy is in the expansion phase of the cycle and doing pretty well. GDP is up, we've got something like ~95% employment, which use to be considered a fully developed workforce durring other administrations. What measurement supports the notion they have done a damned good job undermining us economically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: What measurement supports the notion they have done a damned good job undermining us economically?I know it's a mistake to get involved here; that most minds are made up and that any facts can be ignored; but who could ignore a straight line like that? Can anyone look at the national debt at the end of fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2005 and say with a straight face the economy has gotten better? Be sure to click on the graph on this page. Anyone with any math can tell the slope of the graph changed in 2001. Hmmm, 2001, did anything change that year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I'm going to lock this because it is significantly off topic. However, I would encourage those of you who do not think the heart of the AQ strategy is to hit the West in the pocket book as the catalyst for change, need to look at Bin Laden's statements immediately before and immediately after the 9/11 attacks. It's been a few years since I've heard/read them (some were on video), but he clearly indicated that the strategy was largely built on change as the result of economic attacks. After reading that the Pentagon has received $2.6 Billion to replace helos that were damaged or shot down over the past three years by probably $2000 worth of small arms, RPGs, and IEDs... well, I'd say they're winning that part of the war hands down. And if you don't agree, tack on another $1.5 Billion for systems to counter those $30 RPG attacks. Steve [ March 01, 2006, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts