spreading terror

these bastards are so f&%$#% smart: terrorize the media outlets with tiny
bits of anthrax (I guess this is proof that widespread anthrax attack is
beyond their capabilities) and you can be sure the terror will be spread
effectively to every corner of the country through every television and
newspaper.

Dante

--- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> these bastards are so f&%$#% smart: terrorize the media outlets
with tiny
> bits of anthrax (I guess this is proof that widespread anthrax
attack is
> beyond their capabilities)

One person has died. Why not hundreds? Once you have the bacteria,
isn't it very easy to have it reproduce itself in vast quantities?

> and you can be sure the terror will be spread
> effectively to every corner of the country through every television
and
> newspaper.

If fear and symbolism were their only goal, they would have crashed
into the World Trade Center at night or on the weekend.

> One person has died. Why not hundreds? Once you have the bacteria,
> isn't it very easy to have it reproduce itself in vast quantities?

perhaps but it is not so easy to prepare it for airborn dispersal, which is
what is required for a mass attack. If they could have done this I sure they
would have, don't you think?

> If fear and symbolism were their only goal, they would have crashed
> into the World Trade Center at night or on the weekend.
>

Not their only goal, but an important goal of terrorism. Why else would they
send the anthrax to media outlets?

Dante

--- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> these bastards are so f&%$#% smart: terrorize the media outlets with
> tiny bits of anthrax (I guess this is proof that widespread anthrax
> attack is beyond their capabilities) and you can be sure the terror
> will be spread effectively to every corner of the country through
> every television and newspaper.
>
> Dante

Yup, that was clever. In fact, sending it to the headquarters of the
comglomerate that produces the tabloids was *very* smart, since the
folks who read those and take them seriously are more likely to be
less educated and more likely to believe scare stories about the
disease.

Just today, KOA radio here in Denver led a news story with a teaser,
"Anthrax infection at NBC headquarters and an envelope full of anthrax
spores". Of course when the actual story was read, it turns out that
the envelope wasn't full of anthrax spores. The irresponsibility is
staggering, possibly criminal, but ratings are more important than
truth or morale. These people (the media outlets profiteering on this
stuff) make me sick.

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > One person has died. Why not hundreds? Once you have the bacteria,
> > isn't it very easy to have it reproduce itself in vast quantities?
>
> perhaps but it is not so easy to prepare it for airborn dispersal, which is
> what is required for a mass attack. If they could have done this I sure they
> would have, don't you think?

We'll see what happens in the upcoming months/years. I hope you're right.

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_836.html#845

> --- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > > One person has died. Why not hundreds? Once you have the
bacteria, isn't it very easy to have it reproduce itself in vast
quantities?
> >
> > perhaps but it is not so easy to prepare it for airborn
dispersal, which is what is required for a mass attack. If they could
have done this I sure they would have, don't you think?
>
> We'll see what happens in the upcoming months/years. I hope you're
right.

Of course they will be able to do this... That's why the US Military
is spending so much energy attacking them and trying to control them
at their core...

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

[Paul E wrote:]
>>We'll see what happens in the upcoming months/years. I hope you're
>>right.

[Joseph Pehrson wrote:]
>Of course they will be able to do this... That's why the US Military
>is spending so much energy attacking them and trying to control them
>at their core...

Does the US Military know who "them" is? I'm in favor of bringing those
guilty for the bombings and/or the anthrax to justice, but I fear that
we're just going around blasting at anything that moves in disfavored
nations, which will _not_ act to control future terrorist activities.
Quite the opposite, if we're not very careful.

It disturbs me greatly that Bush & Co. say they have "proof" that bin
Laden is responsible, but refuse to share it with the world. That
smacks of serious disinformation in my book. I wouldn't trust Bush
(father or son) any farther than I could throw them.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_836.html#855

[John DeLaubenfels:]
> It disturbs me greatly that Bush & Co. say they have "proof" that
bin Laden is responsible, but refuse to share it with the world.

[J. Pehrson:]
I don't want to quibble about this, John, but I believe your
statement is inaccurate. The "proof" was, apparently, shared with
Britain, as proclaimed rather vociferously by Tony Blair and also was
even acknowledged by Pakistan...

Can you imagine Pakistan acknowledging something if it wasn't
particularly conclusive with their present anti-American sentiment?

Why it wasn't revealed at home, I don't know. Could they possibly be
protecting somebody here that they need for future intelligence? If
so, believe me I'm for protecting them... since we really don't need
these guys wandering around in our backyard...

There's more to this story than we presently know, I admit, but there
might also be *reasons* we don't know.

At least, that's what *I've* been gleaning from studying the news...

______ ________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

[I wrote:]
>>It disturbs me greatly that Bush & Co. say they have "proof" that
>>bin Laden is responsible, but refuse to share it with the world.

[J. Pehrson:]
>I don't want to quibble about this, John, but I believe your
>statement is inaccurate. The "proof" was, apparently, shared with
>Britain, as proclaimed rather vociferously by Tony Blair and also was
>even acknowledged by Pakistan...

It (whatever "it" was) was shared with certain leaders of those
countries.

>Can you imagine Pakistan acknowledging something if it wasn't
>particularly conclusive with their present anti-American sentiment?

Pakistan's leader has particular reasons for wanting to cozy up to the
U.S. Tony Blair also has every motivation for saying "me too!" to
whatever Bush says. It is certain that every one of these leaders has
motivations they are not revealing openly. Demanding accountability is
absolutely vital, especially in times of war, I believe.

>Why it wasn't revealed at home, I don't know. Could they possibly be
>protecting somebody here that they need for future intelligence? If
>so, believe me I'm for protecting them...

Yes, the danger of compromising intelligence sources makes the release
of some information difficult.

>since we really don't need these guys wandering around in our
>backyard...

My point is only that we need to make darn sure we've got the right
"these guys" in our high-tech sights. And justice demands that they
not be blown away without revealing to the world sufficient evidence of
their actual guilt.

>There's more to this story than we presently know, I admit, but there
>might also be *reasons* we don't know.

>At least, that's what *I've* been gleaning from studying the news...

No doubt there's more to the story, and as you know, my complaint is
that Bush & Co. are holding their cards too close to the vest, not
sharing enough with We, the People. And I still don't trust him any
farther than I can throw him.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Pakistan's leader has particular reasons for wanting to cozy up to
the
> U.S.

Hmm . . . he's a notoriously anti-democracy hard-liner . . .
Musharraf is about the last person anyone expected to "cozy up to the
U.S." . . .

> Yes, the danger of compromising intelligence sources makes the
release
> of some information difficult.
>
> My point is only that we need to make darn sure we've got the right
> "these guys" in our high-tech sights. And justice demands that they
> not be blown away without revealing to the world sufficient
evidence of
> their actual guilt.

My understanding is that such evidence has been accepted by most
world governments at present, and I expect (and sincerely hope) a
fuller account will be available to civilians in several years, once
the danger of compromising intelligence sources has subsided. John,
there are a good many reputable journalists and political analysts
out there who don't trust Bush any more than you do, yet I haven't
seen one of them come up with an alternative explanation for the
disasters. Have you?

[I wrote:]
>>Pakistan's leader has particular reasons for wanting to cozy up to the
>>U.S.

[Paul E:]
>Hmm . . . he's a notoriously anti-democracy hard-liner . . .
>Musharraf is about the last person anyone expected to "cozy up to the
>U.S." . . .

What does the fact that he's anti-democracy have to do with anything?
He wants U.S. dollars! Pakistan has been badly hurting with foreign
debt ever since the U.S. stopped the tap after the Soviets were driven
out of Afghanistan years ago. The U.S. is notorious for propping up
anti-democratic rulers whom we feel might have something to offer us.

[JdL:]
>>Yes, the danger of compromising intelligence sources makes the release
>>of some information difficult.

>>My point is only that we need to make darn sure we've got the right
>>"these guys" in our high-tech sights. And justice demands that they
>>not be blown away without revealing to the world sufficient evidence
>>of their actual guilt.

[Paul:]
>My understanding is that such evidence has been accepted by most
>world governments at present, and I expect (and sincerely hope) a
>fuller account will be available to civilians in several years, once
>the danger of compromising intelligence sources has subsided. John,
>there are a good many reputable journalists and political analysts
>out there who don't trust Bush any more than you do, yet I haven't
>seen one of them come up with an alternative explanation for the
>disasters. Have you?

Paul, this doesn't seem like you! I refer you to your own post about
the Bushes' antics for profit. What is the worth of the "acceptance" of
a bunch of heads of state, all of whom have serious axes to grind? You
ask for an "alternative explanation". How is one possible when our own
government conceals 99% of whatever it knows? Isn't it in any event
immoral to go blasting into _anywhere_ (killing civilians and potential
bad guys alike), without making a forceful case for doing so, backed by
solid evidence?

I have little doubt that bin Laden means us harm; he has said so in so
many words. Does condemning the acts of the U.S. (many truly immoral by
any reasonable standard) make an individual deserving of a sentence of
death without trial? You should read my web page some time (political
rants link). Does this make me an enemy as well? Especially without
any corroborating evidence that I've actually committed or ordered an
act of violence?

The fever of war can easily lead to indiscriminate killing, or worse,
the settling of old grudges for disingenuous motives. Reason and
evidence are vital at all times, but are all the more vital in times of
war. Do you disagree?

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> I have little doubt that bin Laden means us harm; he has said so in
so
> many words. Does condemning the acts of the U.S. (many truly
immoral by
> any reasonable standard) make an individual deserving of a sentence
of
> death without trial?

Condemning the acts of the U.S. . . . ? Surely you know that's barely
the tip of the iceberg. Even if you ignore the long history of
terrorist acts, you surely know he has called for the death of
Americans wherever they may be found.

No, no one is deserving of a sentence of death without trial. Least
of all the 5,000 victims of the most recent attacks, and the likely
thousands or millions more that will follow if no action is taken.

> Reason and
> evidence are vital at all times, but are all the more vital in
times of
> war. Do you disagree?

I agree, and I'm happy with the evidence I'm aware of so far. If,
years from now, I'm not proven right, I'll be very, very outraged.
But the thought of another Hitler living with us today is not one I
can easily live with.

[I wrote:]
>>I have little doubt that bin Laden means us harm; he has said so in so
>>many words. Does condemning the acts of the U.S. (many truly immoral
>>by any reasonable standard) make an individual deserving of a sentence
>>of death without trial?

[Paul E:]
>Condemning the acts of the U.S. . . . ? Surely you know that's barely
>the tip of the iceberg. Even if you ignore the long history of
>terrorist acts, you surely know he has called for the death of
>Americans wherever they may be found.

>No, no one is deserving of a sentence of death without trial. Least
>of all the 5,000 victims of the most recent attacks, and the likely
>thousands or millions more that will follow if no action is taken.

Or possibly, even _if_ action is taken, especially if that action is
perceived as unjust by people who have not yet decided to devote their
energies to killing Americans, even at the cost of their own lives.
Surely you will acknowledge that we stand the risk of doing more harm
than good? It is as much for the Muslim masses that clear evidence of
guilt is needed, as for anyone else.

[JdL:]
>>Reason and evidence are vital at all times, but are all the more vital
>>in times of war. Do you disagree?

[Paul:]
>I agree, and I'm happy with the evidence I'm aware of so far. If,
>years from now, I'm not proven right, I'll be very, very outraged.
>But the thought of another Hitler living with us today is not one I
>can easily live with.

I think bin Laden is probably guilty, worthy of pursuit. Still, I think
it is morally imperative for our leaders to make public more than they
presently have. It bothers me greatly that more people don't insist
upon this. As things stand, the U.S. is coming off as an arrogant
heavyweight, the same kind of blundering we've been doing for decades
that got us into this mess.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> >>I have little doubt that bin Laden means us harm; he has said so
in so
> >>many words. Does condemning the acts of the U.S. (many truly
immoral
> >>by any reasonable standard) make an individual deserving of a
sentence
> >>of death without trial?
>
> [Paul E:]
> >Condemning the acts of the U.S. . . . ? Surely you know that's
barely
> >the tip of the iceberg. Even if you ignore the long history of
> >terrorist acts, you surely know he has called for the death of
> >Americans wherever they may be found.
>
> >No, no one is deserving of a sentence of death without trial.
Least
> >of all the 5,000 victims of the most recent attacks, and the
likely
> >thousands or millions more that will follow if no action is taken.
>
> Or possibly, even _if_ action is taken, especially if that action is
> perceived as unjust by people who have not yet decided to devote
their
> energies to killing Americans, even at the cost of their own lives.
> Surely you will acknowledge that we stand the risk of doing more
harm
> than good? It is as much for the Muslim masses that clear evidence
of
> guilt is needed, as for anyone else.

Yes, you're right. The problem is that the Muslim masses (excuse me
for generalizing a bit) are taught in school that America and Jews
are Satan and many will stick to myths such as "Israel was behind the
Sept. 11th attacks" no matter how "clear" the evidence is.
>
> [JdL:]
> >>Reason and evidence are vital at all times, but are all the more
vital
> >>in times of war. Do you disagree?
>
> [Paul:]
> >I agree, and I'm happy with the evidence I'm aware of so far. If,
> >years from now, I'm not proven right, I'll be very, very outraged.
> >But the thought of another Hitler living with us today is not one
I
> >can easily live with.
>
> I think bin Laden is probably guilty, worthy of pursuit. Still, I
think
> it is morally imperative for our leaders to make public more than
they
> presently have. It bothers me greatly that more people don't insist
> upon this. As things stand, the U.S. is coming off as an arrogant
> heavyweight, the same kind of blundering we've been doing for
decades
> that got us into this mess.

I partially agree with you, but I feel the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism in the last century has its own roots, with America
and Israel convenient propaganda targets and scapegoats used in
promulgating some very frightening philosophies.

[Paul E wrote:]
>>>No, no one is deserving of a sentence of death without trial. Least
>>>of all the 5,000 victims of the most recent attacks, and the likely
>>>thousands or millions more that will follow if no action is taken.

[I wrote:]
>>Or possibly, even _if_ action is taken, especially if that action is
>>perceived as unjust by people who have not yet decided to devote their
>>energies to killing Americans, even at the cost of their own lives.
>>Surely you will acknowledge that we stand the risk of doing more harm
>>than good? It is as much for the Muslim masses that clear evidence of
>>guilt is needed, as for anyone else.

[Paul:]
>Yes, you're right. The problem is that the Muslim masses (excuse me
>for generalizing a bit) are taught in school that America and Jews
>are Satan and many will stick to myths such as "Israel was behind the
>Sept. 11th attacks" no matter how "clear" the evidence is.

True, and to a great extent there's nothing we can do about that. What
we _can_ do is to be very careful about laying forth evidence, so that
those who _are_ willing to listen stand a good chance of being
satisfied.

[JdL:]
>>I think bin Laden is probably guilty, worthy of pursuit. Still, I
>>think it is morally imperative for our leaders to make public more
>>than they presently have. It bothers me greatly that more people
>>don't insist upon this. As things stand, the U.S. is coming off as an
>>arrogant heavyweight, the same kind of blundering we've been doing for
>>decades that got us into this mess.

[Paul:]
>I partially agree with you, but I feel the rise of Islamic
>fundamentalism in the last century has its own roots, with America
>and Israel convenient propaganda targets and scapegoats used in
>promulgating some very frightening philosophies.

Certainly. It's possible that even had the U.S. behaved faultlessly in
the past we'd be targeted today. Unfortunately, we've often behaved
very badly, and I have to believe that has a lot to do with what's
being thrown at us now. The best we can do is try to sow seeds of
genuine respect starting today (while going after nasty criminals, to
be sure!).

JdL

Paul wrote:

"I partially agree with you, but I feel the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the last century has its own roots, with America and Israel convenient propaganda targets and scapegoats used in promulgating some very frightening philosophies." And I fully agree with him. Johnny Reinhard

[Johnny Reinhard wrote:]
>Paul wrote:
>"I partially agree with you, but I feel the rise of Islamic
>fundamentalism in the last century has its own roots, with America and
>Israel convenient propaganda targets and scapegoats used in
>promulgating some very frightening philosophies." And I fully agree
>with him. Johnny Reinhard

I do too, but what conclusion are we trying to draw from this assertion?
As I've said, I support going after the criminals who perpetrated these
acts of terror; I do not see any of the U.S.'s sins as justification for
the murder of innocents. At the same time, if we use such thoughts as
a rationalization for continuing to turn a blind eye to this nations's
meddling around the world (see the Peru story, for example), I think
we're being far to easy on ourselves, and very stupid in continuing to
sow seeds of hatred which our children will reap.

JdL