"The only way to deal with [terrorism] is to go after the terrorists ... and we must also go after the nations that are harboring and financing and supporting and facilitating and tolerating these terrorists," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.>
That's so good. He'll be able to really clean out the IRA and anyone who supports them in the USA. He could call in British SAS who are currently doing some good work in Afghanistan. Next, the SAS can land in New York and Washington and hunt down those harbouring, financing, supporting, facilitating and tolerating the IRA terrorists. CNN will be able to show it up close and personal - too hard to cover the situation in Afghanistan.
Oh, hang on, no, those are GOOD terrorists who do really good work like bombing Omagh and the Tower of London killing heaps of ordinary people.
But if Britain disagrees, they could give the USA 3 days to hand over the terrorists and those supporting them or they could consider the USA to be a terrorist state.
No, hang on, that can't be right. The USA are the GOOD guys. The IRA are freedom fighters, not terrorists. Bill Clinton did NOT support terrorism or Gerry Adams or Irish terrorists, just made sure he gave a few photo ops to get the IRA sympathiser vote. Gerry Adams is remarkably similar to Osama bin Laden [though lacking the sense of humour].
I've gotta get those labels right...
Gerry and Yasser, brothers in arms and bombs for freedom. trincoll.edu
If somebody could explain to me whether I'm right that the USA supports terrorism I'd appreciate it. I heard the Chechens have done some enthusiastic bombings of civilians in Moscow. I suppose they got support from somebody in Afghanistan and I wonder who supplied the weaponry and money to those people in Afghanistan.
Now that terrorism has spread from Auckland [conducted by the French - Chirac hypocritically claiming that France has always been against terrorism], traveling in a westerly direction to Noo Yawk, we all seem to be in the same boat.
So, perhaps Americans could stop supporting freedom fighters in Chechnya, Ireland and other places and start supporting unconditional surrender of Afghanistan to the USA which would hand it over to the UN [after they have collected the people who they figure were bin Laden buddies] to be run as a self-governing protectorate [some changes to the UN constitution are needed]. Unconditional surrender could be quickly achieved by threat of neutron bomb attack on the Taleban. A night-time demonstration of a teeny nuke 10 km above Kabul might help them decide and might quieten down a few other places [such as Saddam, Uday and co in Baghdad which would roll over and play dead at the first approach of a high flying USA aircraft]. Saddam could be deposed and a UN-supervised self-governing democracy installed with a brand new, all singing and dancing Japanese-style constitution.
There is a lot more needed than some minimalist police action to bring maybe 100 WTC co-conspirator attackers to justice. We, the people of the world, are sick of being blown out of the sky, decapitated in Chechnya, dynamited in London tourist spots, buried alive in our office cubicles or drowned in a Greenpeace boat in Auckland.
Having fighters flying escort alongside a commercial jet because somebody objected to not being allowed to smoke a cigarette is idiotic. Air travel is now the safest place to be. There won't be another hijacking in the air. It's called shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
More importantly, there are tonnes and tonnes of Opium produced in Afghanistan under the gaze of bin Laden and much of it ends up in the USA. Right next door, Pakistan, there are his buddies who have nukes by the dozen now. How difficult could it be to ship a nuke buried in opium into the USA? I dare say that Saddam wouldn't mind sending Bean Laden the necessary money to buy a couple from Pakistan.
If tonnes and tonnes of heroin are getting from Afghanistan to the USA, I am sure Bean Laden could put one and one together. The WTC strategy was to use everything that the USA provides against the USA. All the hijackers provided was a bit of skill and malevolent will.
Bean Laden would see it as profoundly just that the evil Satan drug-using ways of the USA and their ineffectual 'war on drugs' could be used against them just as their grandiose WTC and huge airliners could be used against them. The war on drugs provides a culture of concealment among drug importers and huge profits. So, there must be a supply chain which could be used to ship some opium [or heroin] containing a much more serious cargo.
The USA government should warn the drug importers to ensure that they have not been used by people who will blow up the USA. Drug importers might be mercenary, but I don't think many would be happy to be responsible for shipping in a nuke. Perhaps a $10m reward and immunity from drug laws could be offered to anyone who can identify such an import of a cargo which could have contained a nuke.
If I was bin Laden [or Saddam] I would be inclined to store it until needed should a serious attack on my person be made or a follow up attack made some time after the first.
An end to the war on drugs would also be useful in reducing illegal supply lines. If people want suicide by heroin, leave them to it. River Phoenix wasn't saved by the war on drugs and clinics are full - as are the AIDS infected drug user cemeteries. Leave them to it! It would free huge resources for serious USA self defence. It would probably go out of fashion too. Dopey people would be just that again instead of the height of cool. Freedom includes the freedom to choose one's poison.
A single nuke in the right place would kill as many as drugs have in the USA [even including AIDS needle-sharing victims]. Don't let Bean Laden use the USA against itself again.
Mqurice |
