>Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > Todd Archer wrote:
> >
> > >Doug said:
> > >
> > >>Well who attacked the WTC then?
> > >
> > >If a crime's been committed, it would look suspicious to me were someone
> > >to send the cops on a rampage in the "criminal" part of town, busting
> > >doors and heads, while the police chief and mayor chant a mantra about
> > >"seeking justice".
> >
> > That's an answer to another question, not the one I asked.
yeah, but if they'd done the same to "wall st." about white collar crime and insider trailing rings or a gang in the business of money laundering and trafficking in women, then it'd be okay, right?
see, if the US government had done everything right, and it still turned out that the Taliban wouldn't cooperate to let an International Police force get ObL Inc, then no one could whine -- except people who follow Carrol in arguing that the entire justice system is fucked. Would you really find it repulsive if, in the end, those police forces had to use guns and various weapons to get these guys? it's not likely that they'd give themselves up. it would have entailed a limited war, anyway.
and, like i said before, what _are_ you going to do if this network isn't busted up and we continue to be plagued by terrorist attacks? eh? it's quite likely. google info on terrorism and CIA reports. there's a lot out there from 1980s. read up on it. take it with a big huge salt lick of course. figure that half of it is right. figure that this isn't just about political terrorism, but about a crime ring engaged in trafficking in women, in gun and weapons smuggling, in various kinds of credit card fraud, etc.