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: Richnorth who wrote (24362)	3/6/2004 8:54:34 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27746

Massive use of fear on whom? On the terrorists of course. It's interesting that you pick one word out of a sentence to instead of questioning the whole sentence. The sentence read "One is through massive force or fear." After I wrote that sentence I realized it didn't convey what I actually meant. Perhaps a better word than massive would be brutal like "One is the use of brutal force or the use of their fear of brutal force." Brutal also isn't the right word. What may appear brutal to the terrorists may not be brutal to us. If we are going to wage war against the terrorists we have to use force that they are afraid of. They aren't afraid of dying, most of them say they welcome it because they will become martyrs. So if they aren't afraid of dying what are they afraid of? One thing is not going to heaven. According to their religion if they would die in combat they automatically go to heaven and get their allotment of virgins. What if we whenever we killed one of them we wrapped their body in a pigskin, buried it and refused to tell them where it is until the war on terrorism is over? According to their religion this would prevent them from going to heaven. I don't think we should do this right away but we should let them know we are thinking of adopting tactics that are down on their level such as this. Their are other things which we could do but I don't think should even be considered unless they attack us with a "nukular" bomb or biological weapons. For instance: Muslims have great respect for their parents. If we declared that a terrorists parents and close relatives were just as responsible for the terrorists actions as they were and would be pursued the same as them many of them would think differently and many parents would think twice about steering their children in the direction of terrorism. To ever make progress in the war on terrorism we have to see that their mosques are not headed by radicals who are recruiting terrorists. If they do use a weapon of mass destruction on us we should crack down hard on the clerics in the mosques which preach terrorism. We should do this not only here but wherever we have the power to do so. The terrorists funding is something which they cannot exist without. We have done much to cut off their funding but it probably isn't near what we should or could have done. The CIA has a huge budget which for the most part we don't even know anything about. It is said 90% of what they spend is spent on propaganda. To me that sounds ridiculous, we should be spending much more of that money on agent on the ground activities. Putting more pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to help us should also be done. ______________ you said--- Oh, I wish I have the time to write more on this. But right now, I have to rush off to keep an appointment. Meantime, please share your thoughts. I am sure lots of folks here will be watching attentively. _________ I have many other thoughts on terrorism, those are just a few. Instead of just attacking my viewpoint why don't you give me an idea of what you think should be done. I'll be watching attentively.