Re: TERRORISM: Seriousness and potential strategies

From: Alex F. Bokov (
Date: Wed Sep 26 2001 - 07:21:18 MDT


Either I've finally gotten on everybody's killfile, or my messages one this
topic have been too longwinded.

The POINT is, we are not at war with a government. We are at war with
a transnational network of fanatics. This time, we are on the
centralized, top-heavy end of a conflict. This calls for new
strategies of warfare.

It seems to me that a strategy worth trying is memetic warfare in
conjunction with economic aid. Give them some secular nonsense to
occupy their brains so there's less room for religious nonsense. Give
them something to lose and they won't be so in love with carnage.

Call it moderation if you want. I've thought of a catchier name--

        The Porkrinds, Porn, and Pilsner Campaign

- --as in, the first things our bombers should airdrop over Towelstan.
Where reason and basic human decency fail, perhaps the adversary's
basic human greed and hedonism can still offer a ray of hope.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:55:56AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> > > > "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of
> > > > Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches,
> > > > dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbours,
> > > > and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to
> > > > fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples . . . ."
> > >
> > > > Bin Laden called upon Muslims to fight against the United States and its
> > > > people "in accordance with the words of Almighty God." (19)
> > >
> > > So, for people on the list who would argue moderation, one has to
> > > recognize that "war" has been declared on us.
> >
> > For those who would argue immoderation, one has to recognize _why_
> > "war" has been declared on us.
> Blah blah. By the same logic, we should have been moderate with Japan,
> since they claimed they were only 'defending' themselves against the
> trade embargo we had imposed on them prior to Dec 7th, and we should
> have been 'moderate' with the Nazis, since they claimed that they were
> only regaining territory that had been taken from them unjustly in the
> Versailles treaty, and were, according to them, dealing with 'criminal'
> elements (jews and communists) that had contributed to Germany's defeat.
> See what happens to open minded people? Their brains fall out.
> Just because someone showers you with their counterclaims that they say
> justifies their hatred of us doesn't mean you have to listen to them, or
> that they are in any way right. No nation is innocent. You can always
> come up with a laundry list of offenses that one nation has committed
> against another to justify any action you wish to take.
> Mike Lorrey

- --

Delta Force AK47 Bill of Rights
Why are the above words in my signature? Check out:

Version: PGP 6.5.8


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:57 MDT