[ExI] riots again

Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 14:47:10 UTC 2012

On 5 October 2012 05:52, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> In late 2001 doing nothing and letting  Osama bin Laden sit safely and
> openly in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban was simply not a
> viable option and to pretend otherwise is unrealistic.

Agreed. Not to yield to the temptation of profiting from the opportunity
was not really an option for the powers that be and their ideologues , and
to pretend otherwise is unrealistic. :-)

This is probably the reason why conspiracy lovers have such a field day
with 9/11. Irrespective of what actually happened, it must have seemed
something too good to be true to some, and to some of their opponents at
the same time.

So you believe that if you're nice to moronic religious terrorists then
> moronic religious terrorists will be nice to you. I disagree.

Personally, I am not into angelism, and I realise that countries (and
guerrilla movement alike) have armies and intel and weapons for a reason.

Yet, this does not mean that all decisions to put them at use, and the ways
they are put at use, are all created equal.

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20121005/14555bdb/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list