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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (37690)	11/20/2001 10:35:37 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But what if he chooses the 80 year old or the 6 year old because he wants to go to war with the whole city? There is your analogy. He chooses the victim that will provoke the most outrage, because what he wants is outrage, and all out war.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (37690)	11/20/2001 10:49:36 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hmm, I see your analogy. But I still disagree with it. Firstly because OBL undoubtedly is the leader of al-Quaida, like it or not. Leaders send in their troops, to achieve defined objectives. He wanted a US attack on Afghanistan (although I think he expects to survive it), his gamble is that it would destabilise the ME to his advantage or at least the advantage of his aims. Secondly, because he has attacked military targets in the past, when he could. Thirdly, whatever else can be said about piloting a jet full of fuel (and of course passengers) into a building, it does not argue fear and the preservation of one's own life. Fourthly, according to intelligence reports, he has announced his attacks... not precisely, but in pretty clear overall terms. BTW, one thing... I would put our action in the category of the six year old's Dad hunting down the robber and taking him by surprise* and beating the shit out of him.* Why by surprise? It's what I'd do, certainly - more sensible and likely to succeed - but doesn't it make it cowardly (at least, in the sense your counterparts are using here)?