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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (31935)	2/27/2004 3:22:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793618

I don't know what is so "Interesting" about that? What is interesting is that your fear is not proportional to your risk. Any approach to fear other than risk assessment is interesting to me because it's, well, odd. I consider my level of risk high since I currently live in an area that has been targeted before and there are several military bases nearby I'm near ground zero, too, right next to the mother of all military bases, and there are huge Arab and Muslim communities. This is Friday, the day I can hardly get out of my neighborhood at lunchtime due to mosque traffic. I recognize that my level of risk is higher than that of someone who lives in Sedona or Squaw Valley. That does not make it high, though. Even where I live, my bathtub is a greater threat to life and limb, despite its placidity. I also consider the threat to our national economy very disturbing It is disturbing. But as I said earlier, the greatest risk to our economy is fear of terrorists, not the terrorists themselves. What do you think is the worst case scenario? I see loss of productivity from diversion of resources to security and a stock market crash due to investor fears as the worst case scenario. Both of those are more a function of our fear than what the terrorists can do. Perhaps I'm not being creative enough and am missing something. What do you think is the worst case scenario economy-wise at the hands of terrorists? The level of hostility is extremely high imo. The motivation and modus operandi is like nothing I've ever seen. I feel compelled to support any effort to defend against this enemy. I completely agree. One of the most important things we can do to defend ourselves is to put our fears in perspective so that we can more readiy respond intelligently.

To: Neeka who wrote (31935)	2/27/2004 5:08:19 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793618

This hooey about bathtubs, car accidents, the flu, etc., has no real comparison to the current threat from terrorists. The harm brought about by these things are incidental or accidental. We have taken steps to mitigate & limit the harm for each of them. As noted already, some harm is beyond control as the costs to eradicate the harm far outweigh the benefits. How many of the dangers they posed resulted in the slaughter of 3,000+ people & many hundreds of billions in economic damage in the matter of a few hours? All of the points you, Nadine, LB & others have made correctly point out that terrorists are obviously a unique threat consciously made by demented humans totally focused on our demise physically & economically. The harm brought about by terrorists is intentional. That they are fanatics willing to give their lives committing horrific atrocities makes them very dangerous to free & open societies. In one terrible incident (or a series of coordinated attacks) terrorists could destroy a major city (or many thousands in multiple sites) with a horrific slaughter of innocent people & dramatically impact economies globally. IMO, to bury our heads in the sand & pretend the threat won't get worse will play right into the terrorists hands. A limited or so called "proportional" response will be seen as weakness & not result in deterring enough of them. The likelihood of any of their boogeymen to achieve the same outcome would be for a pandemic to occur in spite of our global attempts to monitor & prevent them. FWIW, you will never change kholt's mind. Even when her original POV is shown to be wrong or lacking merit, she just nuances, massages & obfuscates her position until you give up because you no longer understand what she is talking about, or her position has significantly morphed into something she can claim was correct all along. JMHO