On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> The best op ed piece I've seen so far...
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,248-2001320458,00.html
> > One is that the attacks are cowardly, though it takes a very remarkable
> > kind of cowardice to face the certain death that confronted the
> > hijackers.
The author misinterpreted. The cowards are the ones who organized and
guided the psychopaths who hijacked the planes.
> > Another is that the attacks required resources that could only have been
> > provided with the support of rogue states, although it is not evident
> > that they needed anything more than good organisation, access to open
> > information about airline schedules, a dozen people prepared to die for
> > their cause, and a phenomenal amount of luck.
Luck? Rational analysis tends to discount explanations that are highly
improbable (a more precise way of saying they required phenomenal luck)
> > There were three principal objectives. One was selfadvertisement what
> > was called Propaganda of the Deed to show the world that the group
> > existed and was ruthless in its determination to achieve its ends. The
> > second was to demoralise the government and its supporters. And the
> > third was to provoke the government into such savage acts of suppression
> > that it forfeited public support and awoke popular and international
> > sympathy for the revolutionary cause. This was known as a strategy of
> > provocation.
I thought this was a good summary. However, the attack on Tuesday does
not achieve the first goal (what group exists? what are its goals?) and
is unlikely to achieve the last (the US will not engage in savage acts
of suppression and the US has already received international sympathy
and support).
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikreuter.com/
