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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (79335)	3/3/2003 8:56:58 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, Excellent point. If in fact they are doing saddams bidding how far will they take it? Will they start shooting at some point? And if the plutonium starts being produced, what to do? You can be sure some of the bombs will go to saddam in your scenario. mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (79335)	3/3/2003 9:39:22 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

1. Hit Them Where They Ain't Reports that Al Qaeda wants to hijack planes and crash them into ships and subs at Pearl Harbor is -- once the shock of the sheer audacity wears off -- actually very good news. If accurate, the reports would indicate that Al Qaeda responds predictably to changes in conditions. And predictability is the first step to being caught. One of the key intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 was missing the role domestic flights could play in acts of terror. Security around domestic flights and at airports in the U.S. was, on balance, much less stringent than that found elsewhere in the world. Anyone looking to hijack planes would eventually come to the conclusion that the best odds were with domestic U.S. flights. Now that security around U.S. flights and airports has been ramped up, including all manner of bogus approaches that do little to actually improve security, those looking to hijack flights have to reassess. Domestic flights are no longer the low-hanging fruit. Today it is likely that overseas flights originating in the bustling airports of Asia provide the best opportunity for hijacking. Add in the fact that Al Qaeda operatives appear adept at moving in and out of places like the Philippines, and using Asian flights for terror becomes even more likely. So if your best bet at gaining control of a plane lies somewhere in Asia, what can you do with it? You want a uniquely U.S. target, preferably on U.S. soil. That points you to Hawaii and once Hawaii becomes a goal, Pearl Harbor is the obvious target. This kind of target selection process shows that terrorists are opportunists. Instead of fixating on single target or means of attack, they adapt and try to give themselves the best chance at success. Counter-terrorist planners in Washington need to recognize this and realize that there is limited utility to making any single means of attack impossible. That is Maginot Line thinking and just as easy to route around. A better approach would be to make the most vulnerable avenues of attack incrementally harder to breach. With luck, the changes would trip up terrorist cells before they have a chance to move and cause them to make mistakes that will expose them. reason.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (79335)	3/3/2003 9:48:56 PM
From: dvdw©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've made the case that n korea is not a discreet case, never has been, all views of nkorea as a discreet problem are wrong. nkorea is a node in a network, it blusters or bites at the whim of the international, saddam is currently one of the internationals top 3. Saddam is funding one leg of the current world triangle. Freedom , vs islamic extremism, vs world socialism.