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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (8940)	10/29/2001 12:16:02 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

Unless this threat is neutralized, we ain't seen nothin' yet. Well, here we agree, only our strategy is vastly different. Now tell me, if Osama bin Laden had been capable of smuggling a 20-kiloton nuclear device into New York Harbor on September 11, do you think he would have hesitated? I don't think so. There is only one way to deal with these kinds of people, only one message they understand and it is to give them such a pounding that they will remember it for 1,000 years. I hear you when you speak of weapons proliferation. That is why we must immediately bring Russia and the other former Soviet Republics into NATO. The price? The nuclear arsenal and all chemical, biological and nuclear scientists fall under joint Russian-NATO supervision. That means NATO handles security. Whether they would ever agree, I don't know. Given enough incentive, maybe. For the rest, nuclear weapons are not so easy to construct as many think. It costs a lot of money, a lot of time, and takes scientific brilliance to pull off. The key is going to be in the end keeping state power or private wealth out of the hands of terrorists. How do we do that? Well, we cut off their funds and destroy the states that would support them. Not simple, but your solution will never work. The terrorists will laugh and wait until they have acquired nuclear weapons. At that point, the holocaust in store would be far worse than what might happen now. Incidentally, I think you are wrong. One of the chief reasons America is in this mess right now is allowing: 1. the November 4, storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, hostage crisis lasting 444 days until January 20, 1981: 52 hostages; 2. the October 23, 1983 truck bombing of the Beirut Marine barracks: 241 dead; 3. the March 1984 kidnapping and subsequent taped (sent to CIA) torture (skinning alive) and murder on June 3, 1985 of CIA Beirut Station Chief Lieutenant Colonel William F. Buckley; 4. the June 14, 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847: murder of Navy diver Robert Stethem; 5. the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro: murder of Leon Klinghoffer; 6. the December 21, 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland: 271 killed; 7. the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing: 6 killed; 8. the June 25, 1996 bombing of the U.S. Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: 19 killed; 9. the August 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: 11 killed; 10. the August 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya: 212 killed; 11. the October 10, 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole: 17 killed; 12. and also the December 24, 1994 failed hijacking of an Air Algeria jet, intended to be crashed into the Eiffel Tower: 4 killed and the terrorists - ...allowing all this to happen and not retaliating as we are now is how we got here. Your strategy has been tried and look where we are today. It will not work. Much as I personally loathe war - as I hope does everyone - we have no choice any longer. If we shirk this responsibility now the future is in greater danger than you can possibly imagine.

To: MSI who wrote (8940)	10/29/2001 11:01:11 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27666

In post # 8940 You stated....." Unlike Hussein, warning of a nuclear strike won't deter those who don't care about themselves or others in this life. That is why threatening escalating violence alone won't win the war, even if it wins a battle. It's much more complicated than that. We have to reduce the number of suicidal terrorists, which killing alone won't accomplish, I don't think, do you? Out of the billion Muslims do you think that the more we kill, the fewer there will be that justify challenging us to the death if the argument is simply who does the greatest violence?"..... >>>>>" Unlike Hussein, warning of a nuclear strike won't deter those who don't care about themselves or others in this life."<<<<< I think we all are aware of that, terrorist don't give a crap if they die or how many die with them. They are already walking dead so a nuclear threat is not directed at them but rather at those muslims ( a billion or so?? )who have not yet sided with bin hiding. If the USA and allies back down again with stupid and useless sanctions which way do you think those undecided muslims will go ?????? ........." Military victories will be temporary. Better they agree to persue other activities. A few outspoken clerics that can turn the tide and create doubt among fundamentalists can save more lives than lots of B-52s, for example. Disengaging from the entire M.E. area when this battle is won, for another example."....... ....." Military victories will be temporary."..... Are Japan and Germany temporary???????????????? ........." Maybe I'm wrong - maybe slaughtering primitive fighters with industrialized weapons will eliminate the threat. I don't think so.'......... IMO you are very wrong. Are you talking about the primitive fighters that slaughtered thousands of Americans with the ability to kill more and likely will?????? These terrorist and the entire muslim world must be shown in no uncertain terms that the rest of the world is fed up with their crap and will end it ONCE AND FOR ALL. Question?.... You one of those politically correct dudes.