An Eye for an Eye Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : An Eye for an Eye

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (75)	9/12/2001 2:03:51 PM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (1) of 505

Good post GZ - paragraph #2 says a lot. "We don't need proof . . ." at least not anymore. OK, we have defined the enemy as terrorists and "will make no distinction between them and the nations that harbor them." However, before we start bombing folks in the Near East it was necessary to determine that the hijackers were not a group of disgruntled postal workers or a band of gothic-type college students on a rampage. With that behind us, and that appears to be the case, we can move on to the subject of reprisals. It seems reasonable to dismiss all legal concern, as you suggest, as to the specific identity and guilt of the specific perpetrator(s) of the WTC destruction. Identity no longer matters - remember we have defined the enemy as "international terrorists." Both Hisballah(Sp?) and Ben Laden are professed terrorists who have both threatened and been linked to multiple terrorist acts against Western civilization before. Consequently, they and their organizations would seem fare game under the strategic definition of the enemy. Should another terrorist organization later prove to be in collaboration or direct perpetrators then their credentials would move to the top of the list. As things stand and since Hisballah (Sp.) is based in and presumably sponsored by Iran while Ben Laden enjoys sanctuary in Afghanistan. Is it tactically reasonable to limit our definition of "harboring nations" to Afghanistan and Iran - at least for the time being? Given such an assumption, totally devastating reprisals are now in order. Targets would include personnel and infrastructures including all known training facilities -- excluding only civilian (non-terrorist) targets. Low-yield tactical warheads might be the weapons of choice. Again, a US-Vietnam- or USSR-Afghani-type action is an untenable option given our post-Clinton state of readiness.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next