Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA11968 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:58:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3BAB2A72.99AE7C11@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:54:26 +0100 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: email@example.com Subject: Re: The Real Weapon References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> The scale of the attack, along with smuggled messages from Osama Bin Laden
> himself indicate that provoking an all out war was the objective. The
> apparent intention to target the White House and perhaps the Capitol Building
> further suggest that this is the case. Anyone who intended to collapse the US
> civilian government must be seen as wanting to cause an emergency military
> takeover in the USA. Such people might have expected and even desired vast
> escalations, including actual nuclear war. If they had gotten all the trouble
> they wanted, the potential loss of life would be far into the millions, not
> only in the USA, but also in any Muslim lands that US generals might have see
> as aggressors. I am not sure that even Dawkins has fully stated the level of
> President George W. Bush told Prime Minister Asnar that the
> United States government was in possession of information that
> a massive terrorist attack, comparable to a declaration war,
> would be launched against targets in the United States. He
> asked Spain and several other NATO allies if they would
> support the United States in a war against terrorism and host
> countries if that were to happen. The diplomat states that
> Spain and a number of other EU nations reluctantly agreed
> to take part in any military action if such an attack occurred,
> and it could be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it had
> been planned and originated outside the U.S.
Looks like both sides are up for it. And don't think a government
wouldn't sacrifice it's people for a strategic goal (remember
Churchill's terror bombing to cause Hitler to copy it, endless unethical
military/medical experiments in US, UK etc.), although 6000 plus people
is maybe more than they bargained for.
The west needs an enemy, and a short route to the sea for oil from
ex-USSR 'stans. The arab list of reasons to kick off is massive, and Bin
Lid (or whatever larger body he represents) is tapping into their hate.
Squash Bin Lid and the next one will be along immediately. It's not the
match that's the problem it's all this petrol lying around. Oppresion
breeds resistance. The real problem here is that the west will never
allow the middle east / near asia to reap the full benefits of their own
resources, because we are far too dependent on them.
What really pisses me off is that if it wasn't for the bloody oil
companies and weapons manufacturers profiting from all the nonsense we
go through, we might have developed better energy sources by now anyway.
Btw remember the Falklands? One of the few 'simple' wars (where you
actually could bomb/shoot your way to success, although diplomatic
channels could have prevented it all, and the US was anti it despite the
fact that we [the *diehard* US ally] had been fking *INVADED*
[technically speaking]); well there's oil round them thar isles.
Chris Taylor (email@example.com)
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 21 2001 - 13:03:42 BST