On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Eugen Leitl wrote: > But why doing it in the first place? To contaminate an area, causing high > costs for decontamination? Doesn't compute. Unless you just want to annoy. > If you want to kill people, stick to nerve agents. Maximum impact > (relatively volatile, excellent LD50), short half life.
If you're going to use small weapons against a huge enemy, the target has to be an important one. Bin Laden did that part right. In fact, why not use his tactics? Won't that accomplish something in ridding us of facisim? No, it won't. What's happened is the opposite, the totalitarian government is getting stronger (which is what Bin Laden wants - to be dictator of the world, so it does fit his plan). To me, that's proof that violent acts won't bring an end to the facist state. Small violent acts have to be really well focussed. Using the state to destroy itself requires a bit of hacking. The violence is then free. Dropping nerve gas or bombs won't do anything useful - look at Israel. I think we can do a lot more damage to the state without being violent. Being treacherous is good enough :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
