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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (26785)	9/12/2001 9:09:13 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree. I'm in a business where risk mitigation is a word we use all the time: the medical device business. I'm wondering how many hijackings would occur if everyone was military trained and carried weapons. Not many, but now you've increased the risk from distraught people with guns. Probably only few dozen a year though, but yikes, do you want your loved ones on the plane where one of those goes down? It's really not a win-win if you define the solutions in only those two problem spaces, now is it? What would be the risk from 'teaching <them/him/her> a lesson'? I actually heard this old guy on TV saying that we should have "nukes on the way to Afghanistan". That's just dumb. Everyone wants a single group of identifiable (and concentrated) people to punish. That just may not be possible. I don't think imprecise knee-jerks will give us what we want - less terrorists. Nor do I think anything will give us NO terrorists. It sucks, doesn't it?