More Bad News on the Terror Front

'"They don't have today the capacity to attack the World [Trade Center] towers as they did on the 11th of September, 2001," he said. "That capacity they don't have, that has been destroyed."

"But they do have the capacity to hit a synagogue in Istanbul, or to hit a hotel in Bali, or in Jakarta, as we have seen."

The report also predicted al Qaeda would continue to function in a decentralized manner, "with 30 or 40 organizations throughout the world and they will be focusing on what they call soft targets, not the hard targets," Munoz said'

Link.

I'm sure the John Birchers and the wingnuts will have a field day with the source--the United Nations, aka the Satanic Organization that Dares Threaten the hegemony of the always benevolent United States (so benevolent that we supported the Shah of Iran for roughly 30 years, Saddam for at least 10, if not 20, the House of Saud since they managed to bring the Arabian Peninsula under their control, etc. etc. ad nauseum). But it is worth considering: if Al Qaeda is able to consider biological and/or chemical weapons, if they've morphed to the point where, while they can't slam airplanes into buildings (thank the supreme being)--BUT CAN hit hotels, synagogues, hotels, and similar targets--doesn't that mean the War on Terror isn't exactly going to plan? I mean, the idea is to STOP this stuff, right?

Maybe Tom DeLay is anxious to get on with Armageddon already, but I'd like to think most folks want to leave the world more or less intact for their children and grandchildren--and all future generations. What's the line? Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity? Yeah, that's it.

The strategy, the rare moments when it looks like Team Bush actually HAS a strategy, seems to be "we'll liberate 'em even if we have to kill 'em all to do so." Damn.

Of course, this might explain the presence of the Brits in the coalition: "The British Government has learned...that we had to destroy the city to save it."