From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 20:48:57 MST
Yup. WTC 9/11 could have happened in the 1970s. We've been on borrowed time.
We(the world population)'re stuck playing Texas Hold'Em (no limit)--the
high rollers are all leg-ironed to the table. Remember the definition of
diplomacy as "the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you find a big enough
rock"? Here's hoping the arm and eye are adequately true.
Probably, it doesn't profit the US to telegraph any real plan for energy
independence. But saying that might be me whistling past (or into) the
graveyard.
The heuristics continue to seem to be:
"Stuff rolls downhill--but it probably won't hit bottom on _my_ watch."
and
"*I'm* the bull goose loony around here!" (--adapted from Kesey's _One
Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: rooting for the Americans
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 17:02:42 EST
From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
To: extropians@extropy.org
D. Broderick asked:
<<Did the attack on the WTC scare your nation so badly?
Damien Broderick>>
Yes, but probably not enought to take the devil by the horn(s).
To prosecute this war one needs to identify the prime enemy, which
happens to be militant Islam. The president, and all current presidents
are in the habit of kissing Wahabbi ass, to an incendiary degree. The
deaths of 3000 Americans on 9-11 was not too dear a price to pay for
saudi petroleum. Alas.
<<Meanwhile, US citizens are slowly being leached of their traditional
liberties. How can free people allow this to happen?>>
We're being slowly leeched because of the lack of political will, to
force the conflict onto Islamic lands, where the issue originates. I
note with glee, that France inexorably Islamist policies have not
blunted attacks against the French, or their oil tankers :-)
Consider that the next surprise attack of consequence, may indeed be an
enhanced fission weapon, sold by Kim Jong IL of North Korea, to Al Qeida
and its Wahabbi funders (not just Saudis), and detonated in the
docksides of San Diego, or near Los Angeles, or San Francisco. Kim, of
course, may be retaliated against, but if Washington, DC is targeted,
then whence cometh the order to strike back? What if Kim denies having
anything to do with such a strike, and what if he is correct?
I would direct all interested parties to this Philadelphia Inquirer
article about theorist, Peter Gale, for elucidation on the threat of
Islamic terror. Thoughtfully cache'd by myself for your convenience.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:wHCeepagkzwC:www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/nation/3586541.htm+Peter+Gale+Terrorism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
<http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:wHCeepagkzwC:www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/nation/3586541.htm+Peter+Gale+Terrorism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
<snippage of content>
I once stated that when the war comes to the Aussie mainland, many
Australians will first blame America for getting it involved on the war
on terror, and thus making Australia a victim of Islamic "rage." I,
indeed, encountered this, right after the Bali attack, in a Yahoo chat.
The threats need to be moved back to Islamic lands where the problem
originates. Because they can't play well with others, or can't adapt to
modernism very well is nobodies fault. But the threat is serious and
the aggression, needs to be dealt with seriously. If W wants to
undermine Iraq as a first step to easing reliance on the House of Ibn
Saud, this is not an issue for me.
Finally, we do need to work on an energy policy, that does not include
petroleum from Islamist states.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST