9 / 11? Again? No, something different! the online edition of the mirror, on 17 September 2001 was really early in the plan, right? While all have had a hand in front of the mouth and the horror on her face, it is here already questions about the "Qui bono" and sets the mind game skillfully continued. With words like "comprehensive campaign" and "with all available means" should always listen to "war". But against whom? The answer came from Rumsfeld himself, as he the Americans to the "new kind of war" einschwor: "politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily," the fight will be. And there was "no historical precedent." Is that the idea behind each next war? "No model in history"? Does it always a "new way" be?
The comparison to Libya of 1986: The U.S. and its allies, terrorists and terror states have always fought hard, but it gives the terrorist violence would not detract from the opposite: After the Americans at the behest of Ronald Reagan, who also called on the global crusade, the headquarters of the Libyan despot Muammar al-Gaddafi bombed, the terrorist violence escalated. So what is the new quality of terrorism and what the military objectives? The equipped more than 2,000 fighters and followers of Osama bin Laden, who had apparently been mixed among the population, or hidden in previously dug pits, were still very dangerous and even for the Air Force is a real risk. Even if air strikes, which had been feared by the Taliban for many years terrorized civilian population that it could be the accidental target. "Acting is about the end of the States that terrorism"
said Paul Wolfowitz, deputy chief of the Pentagon in 2001. He made himself so strong for a full invasion, as in the time of the Gulf War, in his support for the occupation of Baghdad and the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein. But he was outvoted. As Volker Pispers was able to express it: Then you have "the ass in the closet!"
It is never of any other power able to submit to Afghanistan in fact - perhaps because there are no well-minded policy-based deployment. The United States, then under Bush, was instructed that the confederate States, the radical approach, at least militarily - if not morally - View as justified and NATO presented for the first time in its history been a collective defense. If you look at the Russian actions in the Czech Republic would have taken as a model, thousands of innocent people had died, but they would not "for each of these types, you kill, created ten new". The U.S. already counted from the beginning with further attacks as a renewed vengeance.
On 19/09/2001 reported the mirror of more than 100 fighter jets for the Gulf region, a potential cooperation between Russia and the United States, the affirmation of the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, that Osama bin Laden, neither the resources nor the contacts and that would have been the target of the U.S. is focused on several participating States. Meanwhile, Afghans fled to tens of thousands from the cities, for fear of the American attacks. Nearly four million refugees needed help from the World Food Programme.
The comparison to Libya of 1986: The U.S. and its allies, terrorists and terror states have always fought hard, but it gives the terrorist violence would not detract from the opposite: After the Americans at the behest of Ronald Reagan, who also called on the global crusade, the headquarters of the Libyan despot Muammar al-Gaddafi bombed, the terrorist violence escalated. So what is the new quality of terrorism and what the military objectives? The equipped more than 2,000 fighters and followers of Osama bin Laden, who had apparently been mixed among the population, or hidden in previously dug pits, were still very dangerous and even for the Air Force is a real risk. Even if air strikes, which had been feared by the Taliban for many years terrorized civilian population that it could be the accidental target. "Acting is about the end of the States that terrorism"
said Paul Wolfowitz, deputy chief of the Pentagon in 2001. He made himself so strong for a full invasion, as in the time of the Gulf War, in his support for the occupation of Baghdad and the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein. But he was outvoted. As Volker Pispers was able to express it: Then you have "the ass in the closet!"
It is never of any other power able to submit to Afghanistan in fact - perhaps because there are no well-minded policy-based deployment. The United States, then under Bush, was instructed that the confederate States, the radical approach, at least militarily - if not morally - View as justified and NATO presented for the first time in its history been a collective defense. If you look at the Russian actions in the Czech Republic would have taken as a model, thousands of innocent people had died, but they would not "for each of these types, you kill, created ten new". The U.S. already counted from the beginning with further attacks as a renewed vengeance.
On 19/09/2001 reported the mirror of more than 100 fighter jets for the Gulf region, a potential cooperation between Russia and the United States, the affirmation of the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, that Osama bin Laden, neither the resources nor the contacts and that would have been the target of the U.S. is focused on several participating States. Meanwhile, Afghans fled to tens of thousands from the cities, for fear of the American attacks. Nearly four million refugees needed help from the World Food Programme.
0 comments:
Post a Comment