<This is the first Spires comment where I'm not sure of the origin of one statement.

<you seem to have a problem with deadly force and just what is appropriate when and where.>





From a compilation of your 'work' to date. It's an image you hold up on the web.

Sometimes I think monitors should have virtual mirrors attached to them.

<To run the assault correctly, though, I would expect the attack anywhere BUT New York.>



It intrigues me that both times they successfully attacked the US the World Trade Center was involved. In a single "episode" the Pentagon was also involved. I happen to think these guys are smart (opinion, please don't anyone ask the the URL with their Stanford-Binet scores). If they found a novel way to attack New York again, I think they'd really like to do it. It's just too tempting a target, vast, vulnerable, visible.

I believe that on the world scene destroying the WTC and 3,000 people had much more of an impact than if they had wiped out the entire city in which I live (pop. 500,000). So they got a lot of "bang" for our own "buck" with their choice of targets, and they went after it twice.

They also used "judo", they used our resources against us. While I don't think the al-Qeada will be in any shape to do much for a while, I would suspect they'd "hit us where we ain't" again.





Been there, done that -- but that's a Western perspective. Perhaps the narrow mind of the backward terrorist is about as original as, "Hey, it worked last time!"

If it were me, I think I'd learn from the disruption false alarms and unplugged metal detectors have caused. I'd have folks call in with threats, leave suspicious packages around, mail white powders, and in general cause "the system" to overload from the precautions. Smear a few shoe boxes with C4 and send them via airmail somewhere. That would be a safe, cheap way to raise hell. (I suspect someone will accuse me of giving them ideas. I think they are far cleverer than I, and have thought of it before. And I don't think they monitor this board.)

That would imply they were clever enough to do so -- or that we were stupid enough to think they wouldn't.

We'll see.

Or, I might ship some containers on a number of different American ships, if they could find any, or ships owned by American interests, with explosive devices timed to blow up and sink 'em at sea all at the same time. That would cause some problems.

And a little more disruptive to sink them in harbor, blocking piers, or possibly even torpedoing a few oil derricks off the coast of Texas.

And, if any of 'em want's to wreak total hell upon the entire world, a small nuclear weapon in NY or DC would be the way to do it. Then I think, at long last, we'd seal our borders. I think it's much easier to seal our borders than to try to seal theirs. And the consequences for everyone would be terrible.

That would be the coward's answer, Bowser.

A free nation with sealed borders. What an oxymoron.

We must remain defiantly free, at all costs, and on all fronts -- and heaven, or hell, help any who should choose to order us to change.

"Arf"
-- old Sandy quote

Dan