Which candidate do you think Osama would vote for?

[dmp]

For what it's worth...

The STINGER weapon system, provided to the rebels in Afghanistan v. Soviets, was the only weapon in history which, upon it's introduction to the battle, changed the tide of the war.

300? Soviet Aircraft lost.

 

[nakedemperor]

See? the thing is, OBL doesn't NEED any excuses; other than how morally bankrupt our society is in the eyes of the Muslim.

He wasn't saying that Osama himself needed excuses, but that U.S. invasion/occupation gives him credence to other Arabs.

 

[nakedemperor]

For what it's worth...

The STINGER weapon system, provided to the rebels in Afghanistan v. Soviets, was the only weapon in history which, upon it's introduction to the battle, changed the tide of the war.

300? Soviet Aircraft lost.

Disagree. The Super Soaker 1000 was a force to be reckoned with.

 

[CSM]

Some facts about the "foiled" WTC bombing:

The bomb
Yousef's complex 600 kilogram bomb was made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen. He added sodium cyanide to the mix as the vapors could go through the ventilation shafts and elevators of the towers. The van that Yousef used had four 6 m (20 ft) long fuses, all covered in surgical tubing. Yousef calculated that the fuse would trigger the bomb in twelve minutes after he would use a cheap cigarette lighter to light the fuse.

He wanted to prevent smoke from escaping the towers, therefore, catching the public eye by poisoning people inside. He foresaw Tower One collapsing onto Tower Two after the blast would occur.

[edit]
The attack
On February 26, 1993, a car bomb was planted by the Islamist terrorists in the underground garage below Tower One. The bomb's fuses burnt at a rate of one inch per two and one half seconds (1 cm/s). The men spent 300 United States dollars for the materials to build the bomb.

The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., opening a 30 meter wide hole through 4 sublevels of concrete. The bomb generated a pressure of more than 1 GPa. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 4.5 km/s (15,000 ft/s). The cyanide gas that Yousef put in the bomb burnt up in the explosion.

Six people were killed. At least 1,040 others were injured. However, the towers were not destroyed as Yousef envisioned. Yousef escaped to Pakistan several hours later.

The bomb cut off the center's main electrical power line, and all telephone service for New York City. The bomb caused smoke to rise up to the 93rd floor of both towers, and cut off the towers' four stairwells and emergency lighting system.

Despite its relatively low death toll, the bombing shocked the American public. Only once before the 1993 attack that the FBI recorded had a bomb of that force had been used. The FBI has recorded a total of about 73,000 explosions.

Yousef's friends reported the van stolen in an attempt to slow investigators down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

For a foiled attack, it sure did a heck of a lot of damage. I suspect that while the bomb plot did not go off as planned, the few that were killed and over one thousand wounded were a bit dismayed that the foiled attack went off at all.

 

[dmp]

He wasn't saying that Osama himself needed excuses, but that U.S. invasion/occupation gives him credence to other Arabs.

Uh...he's already HAD credence with other Arabs...that's my point. Those ass-heads who buy into what OBL preaches don't need 'more' excuses.

 

[CSM]

For what it's worth...

The STINGER weapon system, provided to the rebels in Afghanistan v. Soviets, was the only weapon in history which, upon it's introduction to the battle, changed the tide of the war.

300? Soviet Aircraft lost.

The only weapon in history???? Maybe the only weapon in Afghani history.

 

[dmp]

The only weapon in history???? Maybe the only weapon in Afghani history.

Name one other weapon that, when introduced into battle, turned the tide of a war.

 

[CSM]

Name one other weapon that, when introduced into battle, turned the tide of a war.

How about the nuclear bomb on Nagaski and Hiroshima? Or don't you think that those two incidents had anything to do with shortening WW II? There have been times throughout history where a weapon (new or not) turned the tide of battle. The English longbow at Argincourt is an example. It was the first time massed archers were used against charging armored knights on the open field of battle and was fairly effective to say the least. There are other examples of weaponry having a great deal of impact on how warfare in general is conducted some even before they were tested on the battlefield.

 

[5stringJeff]

Name one other weapon that, when introduced into battle, turned the tide of a war.

Radar, introduced in the Battle of Britian, 1940-1941.

Saved Britian from the planned Nazi invasion, thus ending westward Nazi expansion. Then the US got involved. The rest is history.

 

[dilloduck]

Name one other weapon that, when introduced into battle, turned the tide of a war.

longbows

 

[CSM]

Radar, introduced in the Battle of Britian, 1940-1941.

Saved Britian from the planned Nazi invasion, thus ending westward Nazi expansion. Then the US got involved. The rest is history.

Yep, same thing with sonar in fighting the wolfpacks in the North Atlantic. More historical is the introduction of the ironclad; while it didn't exactly change the tide of battle it sure as hell changed naval warfare. The tank and machine gun did the same thing as did the airplane.

 

[Avatar4321]

Name one other weapon that, when introduced into battle, turned the tide of a war.

Sword, it was more effective than sticks

Machine gun. If it werent for the Machine gun WW1 would have been alot different.

Heck there are probably tons more.

 

[dmp]

Sword, it was more effective than sticks

Machine gun. If it werent for the Machine gun WW1 would have been alot different.

Heck there are probably tons more.

No...that's not the same thing. Those are weapon advancements. I'm talking about a weapon system, which, when introduced to one side, during a battle, turned the tide of the war.

 

[dmp]

Radar, introduced in the Battle of Britian, 1940-1941.

Saved Britian from the planned Nazi invasion, thus ending westward Nazi expansion. Then the US got involved. The rest is history.

Radar isn't a weapons system.

 

[dmp]

longbows

Again..not the same thing.

There exist no recorded war in history where one side was getting it's ass kicked, until General Dynamics via the US Government intrudeced a weapon which made that side victorious - turned the tide of a war. Not 'Changed warfare'...

 

[dmp]

How about the nuclear bomb on Nagaski and Hiroshima? Or don't you think that those two incidents had anything to do with shortening WW II?

We were already 'winning'...Had we been 'losing' the war up until that point, I'd concede.

There have been times throughout history where a weapon (new or not) turned the tide of battle. The English longbow at Argincourt is an example. It was the first time massed archers were used against charging armored knights on the open field of battle and was fairly effective to say the least. There are other examples of weaponry having a great deal of impact on how warfare in general is conducted some even before they were tested on the battlefield.

Again, you are talking about changes in warfare...I'm not familiar with the Argincourt War.

The point is, again...One side was losing badly. They recieved ONE weapons system, and the entire tide changed - they started to Win..and eventually did.

 

[CSM]

We were already 'winning'...Had we been 'losing' the war up until that point, I'd concede.





Again, you are talking about changes in warfare...I'm not familiar with the Argincourt War.

The point is, again...One side was losing badly. They recieved ONE weapons system, and the entire tide changed - they started to Win..and eventually did.

Well, Argincourt was one of the battles that was a turning point in the Hundred Years war that occupied France and England during the 1st Century.

I would also point out that while Stingers certainly gave the Afghans some freedom of movement in their own country, they are useless against tanks and other ground systems. There were many reason why the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan,stingers not withstanding.

Radar in and of itself is not a weapon system (that is true) but when used in combination with aircraft (as in the battle of England during WW II) it becomes part of a "system of sytems" which much of the US military is based on today.

 

[-Cp]

There is no way of knowing who UBL would vote for until another 20 years goes by when we can see the product of the Bush policies.

But I would guess he would vote for the guy that hasn't been able to kill him for three years. :tng:

How do you KNOW that Osama isn't dead or captured?

 

[dmp]

I would also point out that while Stingers certainly gave the Afghans some freedom of movement in their own country, they are useless against tanks and other ground systems. There were many reason why the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan,stingers not withstanding.

Losing 250+ Aircraft, with no end in sight was prinicple...Point of order - 2.2lbs of C4 could be quite usefull against lightly-armored vehicles...the velocity alone of the system could cause destruction to many land systems.

Older Stingers simply locked on to a heat source - I remember training with live stinger seeker heads, and locking onto a ciggarette lighter's flame. Thus, it's entirely possible to engage ground targets. Newer Stingers have processors which filter out exhaust signatures which differ than those of from Aircraft...mostly.

 

[CSM]

Losing 250+ Aircraft, with no end in sight was prinicple...Point of order - 2.2lbs of C4 could be quite usefull against lightly-armored vehicles...the velocity alone of the system could cause destruction to many land systems.

Older Stingers simply locked on to a heat source - I remember training with live stinger seeker heads, and locking onto a ciggarette lighter's flame. Thus, it's entirely possible to engage ground targets. Newer Stingers have processors which filter out exhaust signatures which differ than those of from Aircraft...mostly.

I know all about Stingers; used to be on a Stinger team when I was a young pup. While it is possible under certain circumstances to engage a ground target with a Stinger, the chances of effectively engaging same are so low as to be useless. I am not saying the introduction of Stingers into that theater of war had no impact, it did. It was not the ONLY factor however.