Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (7696)	9/11/2001 5:59:08 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Apparently Barbara Olsen (wife of US Solicitor General) who appeared on TV shows during the election controversy was on the Pentagon plane and told her husband via cell phone that the terrorists had used knife like weapons. If true, then you can kill 20,000 people with just a knife and a transcontinental jet. Forget about plastique and suitcase nuclear devices. CBS has various amateur videos shot from different angles--it's still the most amazing and unbelievable thing I've ever seen.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (7696)	9/11/2001 6:30:25 PM
From: jim_p	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed, "fully justified and are according to international rules of law." This is nothing short of war, and the only laws that should apply should be the rules of engagement. The aim was to increase the ranks of terrorist and the all so important support mechanism... the governments. The action was a calculated risk. The group is depending on the United States to act as they have always acted. Send in the sixth fleet. Fly a couple a hundred sorties. Shoot some missiles. Declare vengeance and go home. After the debris is swept away the support mechanism still exists. IF the United States were to take this tactic the support mechanism will grow. There will be no end to it and since they have set the "standard" with what happened today. I shudder to think about what the next strike would be. The second goal of a terrorist act is to get the target government to over react thus showing what a real brute the target government is. This, again, is a calculated risk as it can result in the elimination of the support mechanism if the government is willing to become very brutal. The answer is to destroy all the support mechanism for terrorism in the world. Grant Warlaw coined the old phrase, "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot." We're talking about a multi-country (Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia), systematic Air/Ground operation taking several years to plan, fund and execute. Does the United States have the stomach for a multi-country/multi-year campaign to end mid east terrorism? Our prayers go out tonight to the people who died in today's senseless violence. Jim

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (7696)	9/11/2001 7:25:43 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed: I have to disagree about international "law." For what that holds, look to the United Nations and its parade of posturing, dithering, hypocritical and impotent emissaries. It is crucial, as you note, that identification precede retaliation, because our nation must strike only at the responsible parties. Once having done so, the relevant law is the law of survival. Predators laugh at law. We need reasonable assurance of culpability followed by relentless retaliation. We should be concerned with international law only to the extent of asserting that we have followed it. Its purveyors are typically less qualified to judge morality than we are, have no stake here as we do, and will mostly have goals opposite what ours should be (i.e., "better that a hundred terrorists go free than that one should be executed by a cruise missile because we cannot grab him to try him").