Take my secretary, please
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do.
I’ve wondered, for a few weeks, exactly what Mr. Thompson, in resigning, was trying to say about our food supply, but honestly, all I can come up with is that he’s just simply grossly incompetent, which would mesh well with everything else he’s done to improve our safety in this country… nothing.
Alas, some money grubbing lobbyists are likely to snatch him up so he can parley his uselessness into yet more mooching on the government teat while doing nothing to help this nation.
This entry was posted at 11:19 pm on 5 December 2004 and is filed under Social. You can follow any responses to this entry through the post-specific RSS 2.0 feed.
”[Y]ou’d only hurt the people in the cities and only for a short time. And after all, it’s the people in the heartland who are driving this war.”
Which is why they attacked the World Trade Center and not, say, Nebraska’s Memorial Stadium, seating 74,000—http://www.huskerpedia.com/stadium.html ?
That is such a pet peeve of mine—the fallacy that it’s only Republicans/blue-staters that terrorists hate and “want to screw with”.
Actually it’s even more weird than that. They want to hit dense population centers, like DC and NYC, but those people tend to be Democrats. It’s funny that those people with the most experience with actual terrorist attacks in the US didn’t vote for Bush.
You guys are right. Since I’m not in a militia or a Teacher’s union, I can’t possibly know what the terrorists were thinking. But I have this question. If the goal of the 9/11 attacks was to destroy population centers, be it blue or red, then why not exploit these security holes you’ve discovered for something broad-range like a dirty bomb or a neuro-toxin attack? Why go to the trouble of orchestrating a far more surgical operation that uses the very substance of contention (refined oil) as the medium for your message. I content that the population centers involved were immaterial to the intent. If the financial and military centers of the world were in a cornfield in Nebraska, that’s where they would have struck. Bin Ladin is not a dumbass. He struck symbols and he did it symbolically. If he had attacked simply for the purpose of demoralizing attrition, he would not have had the effect of polarizing the nations who are also tired of our imperialistic activities.
Or I could still be full of shit…
Alas, there’s few “symbols” in red-land other than perhaps the Corn Palace in South Dakota. ;-) You’re right that the motivation was symbolism, which is critical when considering terrorism, especially in a situation where you can not hit a large enough percentage of the population to do any real damage.
By hitting those symbols of power (military and financial), the terrorists scared a lot of people. Alas, Joe missed the point that the “war” is a multi-faceted thing. It also includes the bases in Saudi Arabia, our support of Israel over Palestine, etc. The situation is amazingly complex, and yet pretty much unrelated to anything the Administration says publically.
Did you ever spit out what you felt was a really good rant, well thought-out and consice, only to go back and discover a minor misspelling that now drives you apeshit because it makes you feel like you wasted your time and you ended up looking like a moron anyway?
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
He’s an idiot. And the terrorists aren’t…really…when it comes down to it. Attacking the food supply only works for as long as that food is in the supply chain. All you have to do is understand how quickly one anthrax scare caused the entire state of New York to stop consuming powdered donuts to see that you’d only hurt the people in the cities and only for a short time. And after all, it’s the people in the heartland who are driving this war. If they really wanted to screw with those people, they’d take a hint from the first Batman movie and poison hairspray.
Sorry…did I just rant in your journal?