The Taliban allowed their fellow terrorists to attack U.S. troops (and helpless civilians).
The f*cking a$$holes stopped women and children from getting to the Kabul airport, but suicide bombers? They didn't have a problem with THEM getting to the airport.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
Even aside from the fact that ISIS and the Taliban are enemies, it's important to note that this never would've happened if we hadn't fucking invaded Afghanistan.
So you have preferred leaving Al-Qaeda alone then?
Let them plan a follow-up to 9/11? Maybe more than one?
Maybe a dirty bomb attack?
The plain simple fact is that after 9/11 there was no terrorist attack on U.S. soil while George Bush remained president. Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do.
@beckyromero The idea of militarily defeating Al-Qaeda -- or Islamic extremism broadly -- was never founded in reality because Islamic extremism is and always has been an idea, and you can't kill an idea. We've spent two trillion dollars fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet Islamic extremism surged throughout the Levant and to this day, throughout Africa. We managed to kill most of Al-Qaeda, but we've by no means stopped terrorism domestically, and the costs in terms of both human life and dollars spent have been extremely horrific, all while our infrastructure gets a grade of C- and our citizens are dying from preventable illnesses in the tens of thousands.
In terms of preventing another 9/11, the best solutions we had were security solutions. The concept of Homeland Security & information sharing, for example, was a pretty good one; it's much harder to get terrorists in position for this kind of thing if the government is cocordinated in looking out for potential attacks. I also tend to think we should've put a flight marshal on every flight, since one officer with a gun could've easily stopped all four hijackings if s/he was present.
And frankly, the idea that Al-Qaeda could've built a dirty bomb and transported it to the United States was always a work of fiction. Even acquiring the amount of radioactive materials required would've been an insurmountable task for tribes of farmers who wiped their asses with their hands. Transporting it would've been even more absurd; the 19 hijackers in our timeline only managed to get into the US through legal ports of entry, and a dirty bomb isn't exactly small enough to fit in someone's prison pocket.
If all that's not enough for you, here's how I'll finish -- the terrorist attacks of 9/11 killed 3,000 people and costed $40 billion. The Afghanistan War killed 71,000 civilians, 66,000 Afghan army soldiers & police, and 6,000 US service members & contractors. Even if the Afghanistan War had prevented another 9/11, I think we have to seriously ask if it was worth it. To me, it seems a lot like we spent a lot more than we could've possibly hoped to save.
In terms of preventing another 9/11, the best solutions we had were security solutions. The concept of Homeland Security & information sharing, for example, was a pretty good one
It's much harder to get terrorists in position for this kind of thing if the government is cocordinated in looking out for potential attacks.
That's your solution? A national surveillance state?
I also tend to think we should've put a flight marshal on every flight, since one officer with a gun could've easily stopped all four hijackings if s/he was present.
Think of the magnitude of what you just proposed.
On September 10, 2001, there were 38,047 flights inside, to and from the United States.
Do you really think that one air marshal with a gun could have "easily" stop any of those four hijackings? Do you realize that on at least one plane hijackers took a hostage to force their way into the cockpit? They were determined to DIE in order to kill as many innocent people as possible. Do you really think they'd be deterred by one air marshal?
The idea that Al-Qaeda could've built a dirty bomb and transported it to the United States was always a work of fiction.
Most people didn't think the Japanese could attack Pearl Harbor.
Most people didn't think terrorists could use commercial airliners to attack skyscrapers, either.
To me, it seems a lot like we spent a lot more than we could've possibly hoped to save.
The airline industry needs to hire you as an actuary. You're the type of person they'd want to argue on their behalf: "Well, sure we're going to have to pay out millions if one of our airliners crash. But it will cost more if we do these extra maintenance procedures."
That's your solution? A national surveillance state?
Not really, just using the data we already collected to that point to prevent this kind of shit from happening moving forward.
Do you really think that one air marshal with a gun could have "easily" stop any of those four hijackings? Do you realize that on at least one plane hijackers took a hostage to force their way into the cockpit? They were determined to DIE in order to kill as many innocent people as possible. Do you really think they'd be deterred by one air marshal?
The 9/11 hijackers were only armed with boxknives, whereas flight marshals are armed with guns. If there had been a flight marshal on any of the 9/11 flights, it would've been a slaughter, full stop, hostage or no hostage.
Most people didn't think the Japanese could attack Pearl Harbor.
Most people didn't think terrorists could use commercial airliners to attack skyscrapers, either
Not really. Japan had long been known to have a powerful blue-water Navy. We only really thought they wouldn't attack because they didn't want to get destroyed in a massive Naval campaign. As for the 9/11 thing, it's not as if this was the first time this kind of thing had been attempted. People had hijacked planes successfully before and attempted to use them for kamikazi attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were an unusually motivated and to some extent, clever bunch, but barring that, nobody should've been surprised that it was possible.
The airline industry needs to hire you as an actuary. You're the type of person they'd want to argue on their behalf: "Well, sure we're going to have to pay out millions if one of our airliners crash. But it will cost more if we do these extra maintenance procedures."
If the insurance company I was working for wanted to kill 71,000 people to save 3,000, you're damn right I would tell them that that's a shitty idea and I hope to God that they would listen. And look, if the idea of not expending money to save human life sounds cold for you, just take a second to imagine what we could've done with that same amount of money.
36,000 people die from car crashes per year. Imagine if we had spend that same 2.2 trillion dollars on upgrading our transportation infrastructure so we wouldn't have to risk our lives on the roadways so much anymore. 647,000 people die from heart disease every year. Imagine if we had spent that 2.2 trillion dollars upgrading our food system and investing in medical technology (such as artificial hearts) to save people from this sad demise.
I'm just saying, it only makes sense to protect human life by the most economically efficient methods available because like it or not, the gov't only has a finite amount of money to spend. This whole endless war thing ain't it, chief.
