But on the plus side, the Sept 11 attack has had some very positive consequences which will contribute greatly to our long term safety. As terrible as Sept 11 was, it was better than a first strike that was biological or nuclear.

Now there is some awareness in political circles of something that has been apparent in the intelligence community for a long time : you cannot defend against asymetric threats. You must pro-actively hunt down your enemies and kill them. You cannot negotiate or ameliorate. You must exact vengence so thorough and so horrible and so unilateral that there is no doubt you are serious and that you are an enemy to be feared and avoided. No more silly interpretations of the Presidential findings against targeting heads of state to mean that you can't take out individual threats and must use a "command and control" pretext.

My guess would be the war on terrorism is today being fought on many fronts that are not publicised and which, in the long run, may prove the most effective in dealing with the threat. In this type of warfare a decisive blow can be struck with a TOW missile or a Daisycutter - or with a Colt Woodsman fitted with a suppressor or a syringe fitted with shellfish toxin.

As I've said before I would not be surprised if there were people dying in car accidents, eating bad shellfish, or of coronary incidents all over the world who might have acted in other than America's best interest if they had not met an untimely end.

I believe the gloves are off.

I say Godspeed.




>>>> My thoughts also. I feel these people will not be satisfied until the map of the world looks like a piece of 80 grit sandpaper! <<
>>
>>You get the impression a return to the 7th century would seem about right to some of them ;-(
>>
>>Mike
>
>Amen!