Quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I'm not aware of the arrest of 2 caucasian males, but I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that there are white, black, yellow, and green American's on Osama's payroll. By the way, caucasians aren't exclusive to America, you have some in Canada don't you?
The Anthrax targets aren't high profile enough? Are you kidding? The US Postal Service delivering disease to American's front doors! People afraid to open their mail? The people we see in our homes everyday on television attacked! Anthrax being delivered to Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw and all the media agencies we know by name, people we often actually feel we know, not high profile enough? How can you say that? (Weird that Peter Jennings, a Canadian, didn't get any special mail  )
Are you really serious with that argument? Terrorism has now been brought into the home of every American without a single suicide bomber. With only one death from Anthrax and less than a dozen cases, this is more effective means of terrorism, per person, than the WTC, et al.
Terrorism's desire is to inflict terror on the target. This is almost always done with death and destruction. But it doesn't have to be. This Anthrax attack is a great way of inflicting terror with a low body count. Let's call it Terrorism-Lite. Works great! Less killing! No, IT WORKS GREAT! NO, IT'S LESS KILLING!
It could be that American's are involved, or behind this, but the fact that you would prefer to look to this so readily, thinking it more likely than involvement by Osama, is just another reason I don't think your argument makes much sense. Basing this on your knowledge of Osama and his techniques is nothing more than guessing. It's ok to have an opinion, but to bring it up with reference to Timothy McVeigh and Columbine (I've avoided responding to that earlier post where you mentioned it) seems mean spirited. Pure and simple, you're guessing. To do so at the expense of American's is, at best, unkind.
You know as much about Osama Bin Laden as I do, and we both get our information from the same source, the media. You don't know about his overall operation anymore than I do, because only the big stuff makes the news. To say this doesn't fit his profile would mean you were familiar enough with the suspect and his operating procedures to make an assessment, and I don't think that's the case.
As to your Timothy McVeigh comment, yes he was an American, yes he killed innocent Americans, yes he was a terrorist, and yes he was punished. Osama and his terrorist deserves no less punishment, and I hope it doesn't take as long to kill him.
Finally, if it ends up being American's behind the Anthrax attacks they should hang them from the same tree limb as Osama.
I'll tie the knots.
|
Yes, I'm guessing. But, we the lack of true evidence, aren't we all. For your information, Osama Bin Ladden and the Al-Queada network, as never taken responsibility for an attack. He always warned before and he always praised the attackers but, he never said "We did it". Why, I don't know, but I'll speculate because of the implications it would have in an Muslim court.
You're right, I know just as much as you. Ironically, we just so happen to know just as much as the media... who don't know alot
. Of course we all speculate, that's what's "fun" (it's not the word I want to use to describe this but it'll have to do). However, I try to put my self in Osama's shoes and I ask myself: "Can we trust a Caucasian to help us in this operation?". It's funny that the paranoiac me always come up with one simple reason why not: "It could be a law enforcement agency trying to infiltrate us". I know it sounds corny but the fact remains that he could not possibly deal with Caucasians (I know, I generalize again) because he runs the risk of having is operation exposed and the attack would fail.
Again, I try to think like a terrorist and ask myself: "which action will bring America down the most with killing as many Americans as posible?". Those are the 2 central elements of his goal (again, according to the taped messages that we both have seen in the medias
): 1- bring the USA down 2- kill as many Americans as possible. Now, thou an Anthrax attack achieves 1, it doesn't achieve 2 unless a more potent string of anthrax is being used.
Plus, Osama seems to make a show: WTC, Pentagon, Capitol as an intended target, USS Cole, Ambassies in Africa... though terrorizing Americans (and other nations) on their own soils works, it's not something that people can see on the other side of the world. He need to give them something be for them to SEE that America is coming down (even if it isn't)
Anyway, we can debate from sunset to sundown about "was it Osama's" and still not come to expose the truth. The bottom line still remains: 1- Osama (and al.)must be killed and be killed quickly 2- Something must be done quickly to quash the anti-western civilization sentiment present in the Middle East and Africa.
Quite frankly, I don't believe that taking the Talibans out will acheive neither 1 or 2. That's why I don't agree with bush's idea to go after the countries involved. We've exposed a viper's nest that realisticly, we cannot fully control or handled.
Dropping food and supplies with a big American flag and "this is from the people of America" is not the solution. Neither in the short run but especially not in the long run.
Killing people to put a puppet government in place will not work either. Again, IMO, the bombing of afghanistan is a mistake. What we cassually label "colateral damage" here, is labelled "friends, familly, agencies that try to help us" there.
Now, you tell me if this would work: Al-Queada destroyed the WTC and a wing of the pentagon. They killed about 7,000 people in the span of a few hours. Now, they are labelled with an anthrax scare. Do you think that if Al-Queada was to drop food or money that it would fix the situation, would it make us love them?
Thou we might not see it as a decent comparission, it's actually an appropriate one. Over the years, the Western world has been labelled (maybe rightfully, maybe not... but the fact remains that perceptions are stronger than reality) as the bad guys. We have been labelled responsible for the death of MANY. If we go and inflict "colateral damage" when we drop food or supplies. Will that help us or hurt us?
------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential
