UBL is George Washington
camera_lumina at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 6 18:37:48 PDT 2004
"And this was a prime target. Financial disruption from *just* the tower
collapses was significant across the economy as a whole: lost records,
insurance claims, lawsuits, etc., exacted a very substantial loss against
That was nothing compared to the real damage, which I've heard few people
point out. There was a telecom CO in (I think) #4 World Trade Center, and
falling debris took the giant Verizon CO across the street on West Street
offline for almost a week. The result was that Wall Street was basically cut
off for several days...the effect of that dwarfs all the other stuff.
(Although I wonder...Pipar Jaffrey was pretty much wiped out. Even if the
records survived, they lost so much manpower that might have actually had a
small but worldwide impact.) Of course, I truly doubt OBL & his posse
realized this when they targeted the WTC (and the fact that they continue to
pretty much ignore relatively ungarded COs shows they still don't realize
this). If they took out a few key COs downtown one morning the effect on the
economy would be significant.
>From: "J.A. Terranson" <measl at mfn.org>
>To: Justin <justin-cypherpunks at soze.net>
>CC: cypherpunks at minder.net
>Subject: Re: UBL is George Washington
>Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:59:22 -0500 (CDT)
>On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Justin wrote:
> > On 2004-07-06T11:28:41-0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
> > > Sunder wrote:
> > > > Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense.
> > > Doesn't hitting a world financial center impede the funding of
> > Empirically, I don't think so. Since September 11th, funding to the
> > military and security industries have increased substantially through
> > DHS and military contracts. It may be that the only way out is through,
> > and that the only way to be free from Western Imperialism is to cause it
> > to strangle itself.
>Precisely. They are doing to us what we did to the soviets: they making
>us spend ourselves right out of existence.
> > In the short term, however, terrorists have not
> > succeeded in getting our imperialist policies changed.
> > 9/11 with Dubya at the helm can have only one result.
>Dubya at the helm can have only 1 result. 9/11 was just his cover.
> > > If you apply the same standards the US uses to classify dual use
> > > infrastructure, and organizations "linked to" the enemy, I think the
> > > WTC is pretty high on the target list.
> > Yep. Even ignoring specific entities that officed in the WTC, it was an
> > effective target. When a government is in debt 70%+ of the GDP (2002 -
> > $10.4T), there's little distinction between private financial targets
> > and government targets.
>And this was a prime target. Financial disruption from *just* the tower
>collapses was significant across the economy as a whole: lost records,
>insurance claims, lawsuits, etc., exacted a very substantial loss against
> > > The US bombed water treatment plants, electrical facilities, and
> > > bridges in Iraq. Certainly not military targets either.
> > Each democratic government likes to flood the logos with the notion that
> > it only attacks military targets; it convinces citizens that their
> > government is humane, and helps to pacify the non-interventionists.
> > In practice, intelligence is never accurate. Hitting only military
> > targets, even if that were the goal which is clearly not the case -- is
> > not possible.
>Nonetheless, the military *does* consider places like WTC to be legitimate
>sysadmin at mfn.org
> "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do
> not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out
> about them."
> Osama Bin Laden
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy