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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vol who wrote (81767)	9/13/2001 1:49:23 PM
From: Ira Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

You left out a sentence that is needed for full context: They deserve no recognition, other than termination. Do not take my past statement wrong. I am very much a hawk on these issues. I agree that the only way to address this type of issue is decisively and with finality. However, I also feel we need to be careful: 1. The United States should only take unilateral action that is directly linked to this event. Support by a state is still a direct link and the state should be punished. This concern may be a moot point, since NATO has now determined that the mutual defense clause has been activated. The response to this event could now be a NATO response. 2. The United States should get international support for further actions that may not be directly linked to this event. It looks like this is being worked by the Bush administration. The above mentioned determination by NATO is a good start. The nations that comprise NATO is a good base for a continued operation against terrorism in general. Anyway, I was/am worried that a unilateral action by the United States that is not supported by strong evidence would weaken the long term efforts against terrorism. It looks like this is less likely, given the support being given by NATo and other nations. We also need to make sure that we only take action (long term, number 2 above) against groups that have done something. It is a very slippery slope to take someone out because they are militant and disagree with you. While I believe the rules for acting against terrorism should be relaxed relative to "criminal" rules. ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" is too high a standard when dealing with terrorism.) Ira