From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 05:35:28 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> As Brian pointed out to me offlist, in an aside in a response
> to a question I asked, it seems funny that no one commented on
> what should be done, but only what *not* to do (i.e., we all
> agree that it would be a bad idea and quite wrong to nuke Mecca
> in return).
Other things that shouldn't be done:
we shouldn't turn America into more of a police state;
we shouldn't build internment camps for Muslims if the perps
appear to be Muslim.
>
> So here's the scenario (suggested by Brian):
>
> "The Muslim nations of the world have agreed in secret to unite and
> declare a Jihad against the U.S. and other western nations. In order
> to keep this a secret they continue to fund and support terrorist
> groups while publicly denying everything.
>
Sorry, but this is utter bullshit. If it is "in secret" we have
no way of validating this claim or knowing about it. It is
known that the majority of Muslim people claim no such desire.
> The U.S. government and others, having intercepted key communiqués,
> are aware of all this.
Can you say "conspiracy theory"? I knew you could.
>
> The terrorists and their state sponsors successfully nuke
> Manhattan."
>
And we let them because we need a good excuse to finish turning
America into a fascist police state and to whip up war fever to
do whatever the oil men, fundies and would be imperialists want
all over the world. Two can play the conspiracy game. I bet
mine is even closer to the mark if such a thing should
transpire. The administration certainly thinks it needs a good
solid excuse to attack Iraq, which it is determined to do no
matter what.
I would not believe for a minute that Iraq would do such a thing
at a time like this or any other government. It would almost
certainly be the work of freelane terrorists. All governments
have much too much to lose at the moment.
> I personally find this a little far-fetched in the sense that
> it would be weird if *all* Muslim nations were in agreement.
> But who's the extropian afraid of hypothetical questions!?
> Let me assume that, say, exactly six leading Muslim nations
> were found to be in on the conspiracy.
>
There is no uniformity among Muslims to this degree, there
aren't six theocratic Muslim states who would back this. They
have too much to lose.
> Well, Brian, for me that means that the six capitals get
> H-bombed in return, (or whichever cities the Americans
> believe the enemy leaders to be in).
>
Great, so you spread a nuclear war. Wonderful.
> Lee
>
> P.S. Personally, I'm more interested in this scenario: all
> that is known is that the Al Qaeda organization intends to
> destroy some American city on a certain date, and on that
> date---despite the West's best efforts---Manhattan goes up.
> What (from one's limited knowledge and experience) would
> one recommend that the U.S. government do?
Demand the heads of the guilty. If that includes governments
then go to war with them (real formal war not BS) and blast said
government out of existence without killing civilians as much as
possible. There is no eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth
here. Nor should there be. We do not stoop to their methods
but we do find the guilty and soundly take out our wrath.
Beef up security as much as it can be beefed up without taking
away the liberties that make the country worth living in and
that are at the very basis of our prosperity as well. Don't let
any act of terrorism succeed. If it succeeed in changing the
way our government is in relation to its own citizens then the
terrorists were successful. Don't give them that.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:11 MST