From: Dossy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 18:18:22 MST
On 2002.01.06, Tom Andrys <email@example.com> wrote:
> If we take the Bin Laden case, its obvious we have a clear enemy whose
> fault it is, thus designating the distinction.
And even this, we can't be too sure about.
Is it not feasible that the US Government, in an attempt to
bring their influence into the Middle East in order to side
with Israel against Palestine, decided to approach a known
terrorist organization and say "we will assist in your
destroying the Twin Towers in exchange for a public military
assaunt on your known headquarters" ... thus creating enough
deflection from what we're really setting out to do: strongarm
the Palestinians out of the territory Israel wants to claim.
On 9/11, amongst a group of friends, I did a "thumb in the air"
estimate of how many casualties there would be in the WTC area.
My count was 6000, just based on what I knew of the number of
people in the buildings and the area. I don't think I was too
far off, looking back now.
I'd say the government's analysts have much better data, and
analytical skills than I do, so they probably had a much more
accurate number than my wild-ass guess. So, they knew what
their "cost" would be for this deal. 6000 of our people
to save tens of thousands of Israeli and Palestinean casualties
if they indeed go to full war over this matter ... seems like
a fair trade-off.
And if people think that our government wouldn't make that
kind of trade-off because they didn't take down the passenger
planes and kill several hundred people in order to save
6000 people in the WTC towers, think it over carefully. There
must have been something even more worthwhile at stake for
them to allow 6000 people to die that day, otherwise the
decision to take the planes down, albeit a very hard one,
would have been made in the favor of less casualties.
-- Dossy Shiobara mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:33 MST