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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (1970)	9/30/2001 11:11:07 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Excellent, in your face raw stuff! >Dr. Katz kinda reminds me of George P. without as much ouzo. <g> Plus that, he's got a slew of credentials! FYI, I don't drink and I hate that ouzo shit! Plus, I also got some credentials of my own too<g> >PS Hope you like it George! I really did, thanks! I watched Musharraf's interview on CNN today, that man is in the driver's seat, he is still in collection mode, greedy SOB!

To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (1970)	9/30/2001 11:45:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I can agree with some of what this guy is espousing about there being no "total security".. But I have to admit that it's beyond me where he derives the logic for the following statement: "America has enjoyed 10 years of freedom from its last airline hijacking. Why? Because there is little reason or benefit to hijack an American plane. There is no place today that welcomes a hijacker, not even Cuba." Which is why they NOW are using them as flying bombs, something we've never faced in a hi-jacking scenario before. Or this statement: All new security initiated to date including the placement of an "armed" sky marshal on all flights would not have changed the incident that happened on Tuesday, and would require thousands of newly trained police professionals at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Because simply put, it works PRETTY DAMN WELL for the Israelis, and in EVERY INSTANCE, having an armed sky marshal, preferably armed with a silenced automatic, firing frangible bullets, would have prevented these hi-jacking from being perpetrated. And having the crew armed as well would be a major deterrent to anyone trying to storm the pilot's cabin. There's an old adage... "Never bring a knife to a gunfight", and that's what would have been the case on Sept 11th had a sky marshal been on each of those planes. Bin Laden has 200-500 fellows -- Even if we assume 1,000 hard-core terrorists, this means the USA is willing to spend more than $200 million per terrorist. This is insane! First off.. how does he know the number of Bin Laden supporters/soldiers?? Secondly, one biological, chemical, or nuclear attack upon an major US urban center would result in not just thousands of deaths, but hundreds of thousands and even millions. To be frank, it only take one guy to fly over in a crop duster and spew out little anthrax spores upon an entire population. These guys are proven fanatics and utterly willing to die for their cause, taking thousands along with them. They believe they will receive more glory for every infidel they send to hell in the name of Allah... What we had before were idle threats of warfare against the US, and a few bombings here and there that did not directly impact the US people on our shores. They were the price of having a diplomatic or military presence overseas. But now, they've decided to target the US people as a whole and cause us to live in fear of their next strike. Bottom line.. this guy may have a whole "love me wall" of credentials, but he doesn't know squat about the current threat we're facing here... Howeve, I still give him the logic that even the most stringent security measures may not makes us safe, and would result in large expenses and inconveniences. The notion of "adequate security" has always been derived from balancing the perceived, or actual threat, with the inconvenience or willingness to risk the loss of the asset, and/or people. And if this "Dr. Katz" makes any meritous point, it is that we should be very careful as to how much of our freedoms we're willing to surrender on a long-term basis merely in order to be safe from occasional terrorism... A strong, and devastating retaliatory strike against those who facilitated and perpetrated this attack is far more effective a defense in winning respect for the US. Hawk