Along with fearing a US-organized massacre, I've also developed a terrornoid streak in my thinking. Bringing it out of quarantine briefly, it's grounded in the idea that the terrorist organizations might actually have more destructive weapons. It wasn't for nothing that anti-terrorist thinking tended to focus on biological and nuclear weapons leaking out of the former Soviet Union. It goes something like 1. attacks intended to generate casualties in the thousands, leading to 2. massive antiterrorist counterattacks, organized by a multistate coalition, with thousands of noncombatant Moslem casualties, establishing a "justification" for 3. use of unlimited warfare against the West. this might gibe with the letter from Tamim Ansary I posted earlier, in which he speculates that Bin Laden would like to supplant existing Middle Eastern leaders in promoting a war of "Islam against the West." I've tried to avoid demonizing OBL, and really don't know how messianic his groups are, but if his/their thinking is truly apocalyptic, and the official fears of the recent past were more than just hype, then this might be only a preliminary round.
Randy Earnest
>
>
> Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but I said that on this list just
> an hour or so after the two towers went down, as evidenced by the
following
> reply to Max:
>
>
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:55:30 -0400
> From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
> Subject: RE: Hi-jack fall-out
> Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> X-Sender: sokol at jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Reply-to: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
>
> At 11:44 AM 9/11/01 -0400, Max wrote:
> >The likelihood is bombing missions against
> >Afghanistan & Libya, maybe Iran. Tonight.
> >Clinton nat'l security people are quoted as
> >saying *only* Osama Bin Laden could have
> >done this because of the logistical burden.
>
>
>
> I do not think so - the logistics require a very small number of people
> involved, essentially only those who flew the hijacked planes and a
> coordinator. In fact, the fewer people the better for the sake of keeping
> the operation secret. It would not surprise me if it was the work of a
> group operating mainly in the US, just as in case of the first attack on
> the WTC. In that situation, indiscriminate bombing of other countries
> would be arguably the most stupid thing to do - showing in fact how
> clueless and desperate Uncle Sam really is.
> ---end of quote----
>
>
> Of course, I appreciate Michael P. explantions. You are right on target.
> Amazing where empricial observation, even if limited but free of
> ideological blinders, can lead.
>
> However, if the above analysis is correct and the FBI/CIA brass arrives at
> similar conclusions, the consequences can be dire. Figthing terrorists
> abroad is not necessarily such a bad thing. An attack on Afghanistan can
> have the beneficial effect of helping to topple an evil islamist regime
> that enslaved the female population of that country and destroyed its
> cultural heritage. In the same vein, the bombing of Dresden and Berlin
was
> an acceptable price to pay to defeat Hitler. OTOH, fighting islamist
> terrorists already in the US, Canada or Europe could easily lead to the
> creation of a secret police state - that would almost certainly outlive
its
> intended purpose. And then we can kiss our civil liberties goodbye for
good.
>
>
> wojtek
>
>
>
>