IP: A question from Oz

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:55:43 +1100
> From: Nathan Cochrane <ncochrane@theage.fairfax.com.au>

> Hi Dave
>
> Something I don't understand.
>
> The role of terrorism is, of course, to promote terror to achieve
> political aims. And in order to achieve a political aim, people have to
> know the reason for the terror. The people don't have to agree with the
> reason, but they do have to know it. And in order for people to know,
> someone must claim responsibility for the terror.
>
> The attacks were the terror equivalents of America landing a man on the
> moon. Would America have achieved such a coup and not told the world
> about it?
>
> So who has claimed responsibility?
>
> The only suspect, Osama bin Laden, who was cited by news media within
> minutes of the first attack, has said: "Good on whoever did it, but it
> wasn't me".
>
> Whoever did it can't be afraid of the repercussions: nearly two dozen
> hijackers willingly went to their deaths. Death does not scare them, so
> even a massive nuclear strike against them -- which looks more likely as
> time goes on -- would hold no fear over them. To orchestrate such an
> attack, and then deny responsibility, would be a loss of face more
> damaging than mere death to such a person. And any cause great enough to
> make the supreme sacrifice, however misguided, is one they would want
> people to know about.
>
> So why not just step up to the podium and take responsibility?
>
> Another thing that occurs to me, is that if this terror attack was part
> of a holy war, that jihad has been successfully exported now to the
> American people, who are engaged in their own holy war against an enemy
> they can't define or find.
>
> At least the jurisdictions that rely heavily on defense dollars --
> personnel and contracting companies -- will have more money to pump into
> their local economies after ten years of successive spending cuts.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/