Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

Have you heard the latest?

BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Two conflicting reports coming out of Afghanistan at the moment.
The first, rather unconfirmed report is that they will possibly allow bin Laden to be taken to a neutral country for trial provided the US removes trade sanctions against them.
The other report, which is the one most radio/tv stations are spreading because it apparently came from Afghanistan's radio station and is a statement from the government: Afghanistan has declared Holy War on the United States.

I pray that the first is true, but I have a horrible feeling that the second is the true one. Today is the day they were due to decide what to do about bin Laden.
PS the second report arrived in NZ about 1 minute before the news started at 6pm.

------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.

"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
«1

Comments

  • Falcon1Falcon1 Elite Ranger
    I heard the later this morning before going to work. I can't see how the Taliban can fight a war, even a prolonged one as their country is ruined already. An army needs supplies to fight. But then again, they probably won't send an army, just more terrorists. I hope the Holy War story is false, for the sake of all of us.

    ------------------
    'The future is all around us' G'kar
    'I have no surviving enemies! None what so ever!' Galen

    Visit my B5 site at: [url="http://www.nialb5.com"]B5 site[/url].
  • Entil'ZhaEntil'Zha I see famous people
    [quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
    [b]The other report, which is the one most radio/tv stations are spreading because it apparently came from Afghanistan's radio station and is a statement from the government: Afghanistan has declared Holy War on the United States.

    [/b][/quote]

    This is why religious fanatics have no business running a country, And its kind of a cop out, if they declare an actual war, they know they will be bombed out of existance, so they declare a holy war.

    Gah.


    ------------------
    ..And so it Begins
  • Venom06Venom06 Earthforce Officer
    It was nice of them to start lining their troops up on the Pakistan border so we can find them easily.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Yeah that's right... 25,000 out of something like 45,000, wasn't it?

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    The Balance provides. The Balance protects.

    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • I hope it doesn't turn into a Holy War because they are far more frightening than 'normal' wars. The reason for this is that 'normal' wars are usually: wars against oppresion (WW2), wars for territorial purposes (WW2, Falklands, and most other wars), or ideals (Vietnam and most civil wars i.e. British, American, Spanish etc.)

    However, Holy Wars ('Jihads' in Arabic) are far more frightening as the reason behind them is unclear. This, combined with the fact that such wars (100 years war for example) are always (as the name suggests) religiously orientated. People go to war over who is right about the nature of our very existance, and when this is challenged people can go insane. This insanity leads to people losing their 'humanity' and committing terrible attrocities in the name of religion.
    The other thing that is so terrifying (especially for agnostics such as myself) is that when people participate in Holy Wars, the fact that they do it 'in the name of their chosen God' can often be hugely intimidating. Which has the effect of making peopole believe that when attrocities are committed it is not people simply being evil, but something far more frightening.

    I hope most of that made sense. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]

    Cherio.

    ------------------
    Catapvltam habeo. Nisi pecvniam omnem mihi dabis, ad capvt tvvm saxvm immane mittam.
    Mater tva criceta fvit, et pater tvo redolvit bacarvm sambvcvs.

    [This message has been edited by Shuup Nick (edited 09-18-2001).]
  • Vertigo1Vertigo1 Official Fuzzy Dice of FirstOnes.com
    First of all, they have OFFICIALLY declared a jihad against the United States. Now how exactly they plan to act on it....I don't see how. They don't have the resources to fight us, let alone everyone else thats signed on with us.

    To make a long story short, they are [b]****ed[/b] if they try anything with us.

    ------------------
    [url="http://www.mdstudios.f2s.com/index.html"]Material Defender Studios[/url]
    [i]Fan Artwork[/i]
    [i]3dsmax tutorials coming soon![/i]
  • So they declared a Jihad... so what? =P

    These Islamic Fundamentalist nations declare these things all the damn time. It's nothing new and nothing scary.

    They have been overused so much they have lost all meaning. These aren't the Crusades anymore folks. I mean, how many times has the Palastineans declared a Jihad against Israel?

    I say PSSHT whatever to their Jihad. Empty threats.


    As for the first report. Afghanistan can stick that. They are in no position to offer demands to us!
  • RhettRhett (Not even a monkey)
    The Jihad will do very little because I doubt that they can fight us and the rest of the world (as they are currently in a severe drought).
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    The Soviets thought that fighting the Afghans would be easy, look what happened to them. Even though at the time the Afghans were being supplied with some weapons by the US, I'm sure they would be able to get plenty of weapons if they had to.

    Fighting a war in Afghanistan would be disasterous for the US, especially a ground war. Soviet troops experienced guns that froze in the high mountains, tires that melted and tank engines that blew up from the desert heat. Combine the environmental difficulties with the enemy and their well established network of tunnels and caves and you're going to run into some heavy casualties. Also, the Afghans would have almost no fear of dying, or at least most of them, which can't be said about most US troops (although they will die well).

    It's going to be messy.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.
  • RhettRhett (Not even a monkey)
    I don't know. You do have good points, but you need to understand that we (the U.S.) gave the Afganistan people anti-aircraft misssles that had a range of 3 miles (cant think of the name of them, grrr.). By the time the Soviets gave up, they wouldn't fly into Afganistan at all. We would't have this problem. My guess is that the only large ground action would be:

    A. Defending neighboring countries (i.e. Pakistan, because it supported us)

    B. Special Ops missions.

    Although I do agree, invasion is not smart, and I doubt that it is an option.

    Also, we have the support of the world. The world against one nation is a pretty tilted fight on the playing scale.
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    So you think that the USA is the only source for anti-aircraft missiles? That's a tough sell no matter who you're talking to.

    I would hate to be a special-ops guy who's dropped into unknown, hostile terrain, and ordered to sneak into some cave and kidnap someone who's guarded by at least 50 heavily armed guards who are willing to die to protect the guy you're suppose to get out.

    I mean I wish them good luck, but come on, they don't even have a clue as to where in Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden is.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.
  • Stinger missiles is the name.The soviets lost something like 15,000 soldiers in their war with Afghanistan.The thing I don't like about "a holy war" is that it might propell others of the Islamic faith to help the Taliban in the conflict, And with something like a billion people (not that all will join) that are of that religion it could get out of control...
    Perhaps if America did not involve itself with bin Laden in the first place, current events might not have happened????

    This is some of my thoughts and is not meant to offend anyone and I'm sorry if it does...

    ------------------
    Emperor Turhan: How will this end?
    Kosh: In fire
  • We'll be fighting a completely different type of war than the Soviets fought.

    We have the advantage of new technologies that will make the Afghans less effective. No longer will the Afghans just lay still on the desert ground as a Hind flew overhead not being able to see them.

    U.S. Gunships will have the advantage of nightvision but most importantly thermal sensors. We will be able to easily see anybody on the ground in that environment.

    The Afghans will be easy prey and hunted untill they are all dead or surrender. I really should say Taleban, since alot of Afghanistan is fighting them.

    The AntiAir missiles you are thinking of rhett are the American made Stingers. Pretty effective weapons that home in on heat.

    The Soviets devised ways of countering the threat of these missiles. Before that their losses were quite heavy, but afterwards the losses did go down.

    ---

    I have my reservations about fighting on the ground in Afghanistan, but with the large support from the World it can and will be successful.

    Even now the British are deploying the largest fleet since the Falkans to the Middle East. Belgium has committed ground forces to our cause along with Australia.

    People are tired of Terrorism and the losses we will experience in Afghanistan will be small compared to what happens if we do nothing and wait for the next big terrorist attack.

    Six Thousand dead is a high price already. We can't allow these organizations to exist and operate anymore waiting for the next six thousand or even more.

    We will experience some casualties, but in the long run a great many more lives will be saved by these actions.
  • "Perhaps if America did not involve itself with bin Laden in the first place, current events might not have happened????"


    Can you elaborate further on this? Are you referring to the Soviet's and Afghanistan or sometime later?
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    Actually, Bin Laden only started his Anti-American campaign (mostly anyways) after the Gulf War. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, many Muslim leaders, including Bin Laden, urged the King of Saudi Arabia (supposedly a very corrupt guy) not to involves the USA. American troops on Saudi soil was regarded as sacriledge as was an insult to Islamic extremist beliefs. Besides, many Muslims believed that they could handle Hussein on their own, and they were probably right.

    This was made worse when the USA never (and still hasn't) withdrawn all it's forces from the region. They're still there to "protect" against another Iraqi invasion. It was at this point that Bin Laden began bombing US military bases in the middle east, in an attempt to get the US to withdraw once and for all. However this didn't work, so Bin Laden began escalating his strikes.

    After the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, the US struck back with cruise missiles. One of these missiles hit a parmeseutical factory in Sudan, which the US thought was producing chemical weapons. By doing this, the US committed an act of WAR against a country with which the US has diplomatic relations, and did so without giving any warning. As it turns out (as a result of several independant investigations), soil samples at the factory found no sign of chemical weapons substances (this is still disputed).

    So it's basically been going back and forth for a while now. The WTC attack, while completely appauling, is not unexpected.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    Thermal sensors will have a tough time pinpointing someone when they're standing or sitting on rocks that are hotter that they are.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.
  • "The thing I don't like about "a holy war" is that it might propell others of the Islamic faith to help the Taliban in the conflict"


    Again, the Taliban declares these wars ALL the time. Against the Northern Alliance, against Russia, against Iran...
  • Because the rocks are a different temperature the current sensors WILl be able distinguish a person from the terrain.

    Streets and concrete may be hotter than the human body, but police helicopters have no problem tracking and following people running in cities.

    Besides, the point of using the thermal sensing equipment is to look for those who are hiding, standing on rocks big enough to try and hide a group of soldiers...isn't hiding and shouldn't be too hard to spot even without the current gear we have. =P
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    Good points, but I've got a couple more =)

    I would expect the Afganhs to use basically the same tactics they used against the Soviets. Mainly wait for enemy aircraft, run out of your tunnel, fire a missle, and run back in. Thermal sensors can't see through rock. Aircraft alone will not do that much damage (same situtation that the USA encountered in Vietnam). A large ground presense will be needed, which means a large number of casualties. It all depends on how many soldiers the American people are willing to sacrifice.

    This will NOT be another Gulf War, in which the USA hardly lost anything. As I said before, it's going to be messy.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.

    [This message has been edited by Slade (edited 09-19-2001).]
  • No doubt there will be losses. That's why we are having this 'prep' period.

    The President is preparing people for war and casualties. But after losing more people in the bombings than in the Normandy Invasion, not going in and doing what is needed isn't an option anymore.

    We can't wait for more bombings any longer. We can't wait for the first terrorist to use Nuclear weapons against a western city.

    Terrorist infrastructure and networks must be destroyed, even with casualties.

    --

    As for the Taliban living in holes and firing at helicopters, that is a possiblity. But there have been methods developed by the Soviets that help relieve alot of the casualties that come from hand held surface to air missiles.

    Hopefully these methods and other counter measures have been improved in the last 12 years or so.


    Because of Russian cooperation and the Northern Alliance cooperation, we don't have one big problem the Soviets had, and that was no intelligence on the ground. I am hoping that the Northern Alliance has some good detailed information on Afghanistan. Which I think they should, since it is their country. =)

    -----

    Good civil discussion. =)
  • [quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
    [b]The other report, which is the one most radio/tv stations are spreading because it apparently came from Afghanistan's radio station and is a statement from the government: Afghanistan has declared Holy War on the United States.
    [/b][/quote]


    America has basically declared a Jihad of their own (It's a war for what they as a whole supposedly belive in, it threatens their values, they belive they are correct and all other are wrong etc etc)
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    I think the nuclear terrorist attack is inevitable. It won't come from any missile, but from one guy who one day walks up to the white house with a small suitcase, yells "JIHAD!!!", and destroys 5 square miles of Washington. The war on terrorism will be as effective as the war on drugs.

    But you are right, we do have to try.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.
  • It is quite scary. =\

    I can only imagine in 20 years what kind of nuclear weapons and how small they will be.

    Look how simple rocket technology has gotten. People are putting rockets into orbit from their backyard.

    As we advance in technology, things get simpler in our lives. Unfortunately the bad shit comes right along with it. =[
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    Slade is unfortunately right about how easy it will be for a terrorist nuclear attack to occur in the US.

    One does not need special electronics, special explosives, etc. A simple Uranium 235 or Plutonium pellet/core mechanism will suffice.

    Any of your remember the "Grable" test shot in the 50's? It is the same test shot that is in the mushroom cloud image I've used elsewhere in the threads (read: Nuclear Fwapp!).

    A simple artillery shell with a core and pellet mechanism (like an early torpedo firing mechanism) was fired from one of those big army guns and produced one of the strongest nuclear test yields during those years.

    A person could carry a substantial sized weapon in a back pack, with enough fissionable material, a hammer and a nail, and somebody with nothing to lose and...

    well... You get the idea.

    Optimal use of a weapon such as that would be from 1000-2000 feet off the ground, instead of at street level. The blast wave does more damage at the ground level, because it acts like a plow with the wave in rebound.

    Tests in the 50's found that at 1500 feet, you get the optimal damage of ground targets.

    I have to disagree about the target though. I think New York will still be the first love of any Nuclear Terrorism. And, with the affore mentioned qualities, it will likely happen in a high rise in Manhattan.

    [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    The prospect of a terrorist with a suitcase nuke has been quite high in my mind in the past week, and I have to say it scares the shit out of me.

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    The Balance provides. The Balance protects.

    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • Alec MAlec M Award Winning Poster
    I think New York is a less likely target now that the WTC is no more. It depends on whether or not the terrorists are going for numbers of people dead, or the symbolism. If they did detonate a nuke at the white house (I would assume on a day when they know the president is at home) they might destroy it, the pentagon, the lincoln memorial, the capital building and several other "important to the operation of the government" structures.

    ------------------
    [url="http://slade__tek.tripod.com/"]Alec McClymont, 3D Artist[/url]
    3D Artist - GVFX

    We live for the one. We die for the one.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    Personally, If I were to detonate a nuclear weapon in this country, I'd choose Chicago. Why? For one, it is one of , if not the largest rapid transport and trading hubs in this country. Imagine the damage inflicted in one strike if one was to take out The Airport, where almost every airline uses a a "jump" point, docks where goods are loaded and unloaded from ships onto rail, and the rail system itself in one strike, along with countless innocent civilians. Also consider what the lake-effect air currents would do to radioactive material in the air. They'd spread it all over the New England area. It would be devastating. That, shadows and vorlons, is what I'd do.

    But I'm not a terrorist, and I do not have any weapons (hell, the only thing in this house is a .22 rifle with no ammo and a damaged barrel). This is just what I'd think someone would do. Right now, symbolism has been used, and points may have been made, but for the real impact, taking out America's hub of transportation would be the biggest blow.
  • eamonmcaeamonmca Earthforce Officer
    Tom Clancy's - The Sum of All Fears.

    The terrorists hit the Superbowl.
  • David of MacDavid of Mac Elite Ranger Ca
    Not one in Miami I hope. No, wait, that was Black Sunday.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Well if you want to be sure of killing a lot of people without needing a nuke, an event like that is the perfect opportunity. Plus the huge crowds mean less security.

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    The Balance provides. The Balance protects.

    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Sign In or Register to comment.