Anthrax Concerns Send Postal Workers Home (11 workers sick at National Repair Facility in Topeka)

Trust her she knows.

Then she should bloody well explain herself.

Either that, or just keep her mouth shut if she doesn't want to actually say anything.

But this "something's coming, really, you'll see I'm right soon, honest, but I'm not going to actually talk about it now that I've gotten all ominous and made everyone wonder what in the hell I'm talking about" act, which she has done more than once on recent threads, is getting old pretty fast.

I never was a big fan of the "I've got a secret" kind of announcements, it's an insult to the reader. Either spill the beans, or put a sock in it.

Then she should bloody well explain herself.

Sigh... Murphy's law strikes again...

As luck would have it, she *did* post a nicely detailed explanation, between the time I began composing my previous cranky post and the time I posted it.

Consider my last post officially retracted.

I wonder if I could tell them I didn't pay because I was too afraid to open them because of anthrax.

LOL You could, but they'd take everything you own and garnishee your wages for the rest anyway :)

I don't mind getting junk mail, it's those bills I could do without. I wonder if I could tell them I didn't pay because I was too afraid to open them because of anthrax.

I like the way you think!!

Well, that's certainly... a lengthy chain of scenarios.

Is it founded on anything beyond your own speculation, based on the same public info the rest of us are privy to?

Personally I don't see it working out that way. If that were the plan, it doesn't ring true to me that the right way to initiate it would be to knock down some buildings and mail some highly ineffectual anthrax letters.

This strikes me as one of those movie plots, where the bad guy's plan is so complex and baroque that the audience can't help but roll their eyes, because the bad guy could have achieved the same results a lot more directly, and with fewer chances for things to go astray.

Another thing I can't buy is the proposition that Saddam would have been able to talk bin Laden into being the decoy. "Hey, Osama, I want you to pull a job for me so the entire US military will beat the snot out of you and your organization for about two months to distract attention from my own larger plan..."

Al Qaeda has a lot more connections to Saudi Arabia than it does to Iraq, and needless to say Saudi Arabia and Iraq are hardly allies -- quite the contrary, in fact.

It doesn't surprise me that bin Laden would want to try a Big Move -- he wants power and doesn't have a hell of a lot of it right now, he has nowhere to go but up so an all-or-nothing roll of the dice seems a promising move to him. But Saddam Hussein has his own kingdom over there in Iraq, and it's a very cushy one. No matter how pissed he might be at us for thwarting his plans of conquest back in 92, he has a lot more to lose than he has to gain by any kind of new confrontation. And like Qadafy, he has now been on the receiving end of bombs and missiles enough for him to understand the realities of what it means to go up against a superpower. He'll have no illusions about his invincibility. Saddam also has a couple of sons that he'd like to see continue the dynasty after he's gone, and that would go up in smoke (literally) if he tried for another dance with the US. He's much better off just living out his days like Castro, absolute ruler of his own kingdom.

It seems to me our enemies in this confrontation are the "have not's", not the "haves". Saddam Hussein is a "have". And doesn't want to risk losing it. He'll enjoy playing a few little games, but going for broke doesn't seem to be a smart move.

My prediction? Al Qaeda is the mastermind behind the recent attack, not a cat's paw for anyone else. They got lucky on 9/11, I don't think they expected to make as big of a splash as they did. And their anthrax followup (if it *is* their doing -- I still think the odds are decent that it was some other band of arab extremists who decided to pile on to the same jihad once it broke out) has been pitiful, overall.

Al Qaeda never had any big followthrough acts ready after their past attacks, I don't see why they'd have a sudden change of M.O. now. I think they just wanted to make another strike at the Evil Satan, like their previous ones, in order to further their reputation among the fanatical downtrodden in the Middle East, and swell their ranks by continuing to remind people that bin Laden has the balls and ability to strike the fearsome US and (so the story goes) they can't do anything to stop him.

I don't think bin Laden is crazy enough to think he could bring down the US, I think he just wanted to keep building enough of a "rep" back home that he could get a big following and start toppling Arab governments with himself being installed as the new leader, much like the Iranian popular revolts of 1980.

But he screwed up. He overdid things on 9/11, and now he's running for his life. I don't think he had any big Master Plan ready to follow through on the attack of 9/11, and even if he did, deploying it now would just hasten the hunt for him and be tantamount to suicide. If he did have anything else ready, he's *way* overdue for using it -- his days are very much numbered, and he's in a "use it or lose it" scenario. They won't do him any good after he's dead.

Short term outlook: There may be a few further sporadic attacks on us, but nothing widespread or focussed. Bin Laden and the major players in Al Qaeda will be tracked down soon and eliminated, or perhaps linger on in deep hiding for a while until we finally root them out. Either way, they won't be in a position to do much more to us.

Longer term outlook: The remainder of Al Qaeda (we'll never find them *all*, just as it's impossible to eliminate every Mafia member) will reorganize and try again, with some successes and some failures. They'll be trying to regain their lost momentum, and will benefit from fresh volunteers, but we'll benefit from very much higher alertness, and a fresh full-time dedication to track new organizations as they arise and vigorously weed them before they grow too large. The US will learn to live with attacks as frequent as, and on the order of seriousness as, Israel has long experienced, but it's unlikely that we'll be faced with anything as huge as the James Bond Bad Guy scenarios that are being breathlessly flung around. Bin Laden's fate will serve as an example to any others who might have been contemplating trying for a Big Splash. The moral of his story will be, "hit the US *too* hard and your remaining lifespan will be measured in weeks". (Yes, a lone nut may want to make a Big Splash and die in the process, but he can't make a very big splash with just his own resources -- any organization large enough to mount such efforts will also be large enough to be run by people with big plans who want to stick around long enough to enjoy them.)

Longest term outlook: The terrorist organizations will use up fanatics faster than they can be created, because 1) we'll be looking to eliminate them as quickly as we can find them, 2) suicide squads have this nasty habit of being usable only once per squad, and 3) over time the disgruntled masses will learn the futility of making endless suicide attacks that, they will finally have to admit, gain nothing more than swift retaliation and further marginalization of whatever cause they thought they were trying to promote. In time, the moderates will eject them as a detriment to real progress, and arab terrorists will become as rare and quaintly old-fashioned as the KKK is in today's America (and for the same reasons).

Okay, we've both stuck our necks out and ventured "strawman" scenarios, let's revisit them in a month and see how they match up with reality, especially on the anthrax front. Naturally, I hope your scenario is closer to the truth but, obviously, I think we'll find I've got a better read on the situation. Bookmarked.

Okay, we've both stuck our necks out and ventured "strawman" scenarios, let's revisit them in a month and see how they match up with reality, especially on the anthrax front.

Sounds good.

Oh, one more thing... In my prediction I was speaking only of the interaction between terrorism and the US. Aside from that, I think Israel has a bigger potential to be a flashpoint than does the war between US and terrorists. If anything, Arab fanatics who find their attacks on the US to be fruitless (or even counterproductive) may be inspired to turn their efforts to the slightly more realistic goal of causing Israel some damage, and strike while the jihad is still hot so to speak.

And Arab countries that are sitting out the attacks on Aghanistan because they know war with the US would be biting off more than they could chew could well jump in to any conflict with Israel, since they'd see Israel as an enemy more their own size. That could get messy.

Naturally, I hope your scenario is closer to the truth

Me too. :-)