Traditionally speaking, Asymetric warfare has almost always been successful. The best example, of course, is the French exodus from Algeria. As for sympathisizing with OBL, I agree with you, but then again I've never been an asymmetric warrior myself. But it seems to me the bombing of that Indonesian discoteq wernt a long way towards getting the locals to view OBL as just another wannabe remote control dictator wanting to force-feed foregin culture into a complex, multicutlural area where those 'solutions' might be completely inappropriate. Meanwhile, however, anyone read that Vanity Fair article? The United States has almost single-handedly transformed OBL into an underdog and symbol of resistance. -TD

From: Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: Re: UBL is George Washington Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:32:16 +0200 (CEST)

Major Variola (ret) writes:

...

The yanks did not wear regular uniforms and did not march in rows in open fields like Gentlemen. Asymmetric warfare means not playing by *their* rules.

But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal. It's not being very successful. The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise. If al qaeda bombed government buildings or targetted the private residences or offices of government officials, they might get more sympathy, from me at least. Destroying an pair of buildings and killing thousands of citizens -most of whom couldn't give an accurate account of U.S. forces distribution in the MidEast- is not a step forward.

_________________________________________________________________ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up  now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/