[eDebate] ellis on london
Thu Jul 5 15:58:07 CDT 2007
First, as Andrew Culp implied before, networked terrorism erodes the
distinction between inspired and supported actions. Networked terrorism is
similar to networked capitalism. The pencil-maker doesn't have to plan how I
use the pencil, to twist a favorite Milton Friedman scenario. The "media
spin" argument is true, but sort of like saying, "but politicians are
spinning it so it's not quite accurate."
Second, I don't see how AQ is incompetent. They don't need doctors to heal,
their goal is to foster terror. Doctors have access and knowledge of
chemicals. If this particular cell were completely separated logistically
from AQ-I, it testifies to AQ-I's strength, not it's weakeness... they
expended zero resources and any return is good return. If there were
significant logistic connections, it testifies to AQ-I's logistical reach
and capabilities, especially since they were doctors. Either way, for their
purposes it's still AQ-I as long as the effect is the same.
Third, I secretly do hope it's Omri in that other thread, because all this
untamed liberalness on edebate makes my wannabe-rebel nature feel more
conservative. But then I skim the Ann Coulter vs. Edwards news and feel
better about myself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman