|
|||
There are two types of terror, good and bad. What we are practising is good terror. We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them. This tends to argue against pacifistic response, for obvious reasons, unless you're trying to deceive yourself. I found something else he said interesting: The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country. This supports That is supported by something else. If indeed it was intended to be the opening salvo in a war, why have there been no further attacks? But if they actually expected that one attack to cow us and make us withdraw, giving them the political result they seek, then it makes more sense that they had no other attacks planned and ready to go. (discuss) Update: This in turn adds credence to the idea that they don't have nuclear weapons. If they thought that a single blow would be enough to win, then it's clear that they wanted to make that blow as major as they could make it, which is why they tried to hijack at least four jets. If they had a nuclear device, they wouldn't have been fucking around with jets; they've have levelled lower Manhattan. |