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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (202526)	9/16/2004 7:59:43 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575758

"is that the cauldron took awhile to boil over in the Middle East." There was a lot of terrorism in Europe during the 80s and 90s. But none of it reached the US. What, were they just being nice?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (202526)	9/16/2004 9:46:33 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575758

re: Yes, Zarqawi is a known affiliate of Al-Qaeda and he is operating freely in Iraq. So that's one less person organizing attacks in the U.S. OK, you got one... ~20K to go. re: The reason why there hadn't been more attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9/11 is that the cauldron took awhile to boil over in the Middle East. The "cauldron" in the ME has been boiling for centuries, read your history. re: Terrorism has always been a favorite tactic, but it didn't get widespread funding and credibility until Osama made it so. I'm not sure how old you are, but in the early 70's, there were terrorist bombs going off almost daily in the cafes of Paris and the underground of London. I know, I was there. re: Terrorism has always been a favorite tactic, but it didn't get widespread funding and credibility until Osama made it so. The more success he had in attacking us overseas, the bolder he got and the more funding and support he got. That resulted in attacks within U.S. borders. The combination of being actively vigilant and upping our security posture plus going after terrorists aggressively throughout the world has made it much more difficult for them to strike us again. Of course you realize you sound like someone inventing a convoluted scenario to fit a preconceived conclusion. And disregarding the stats. re: For example, if you are trying to kill me and I am standing still, it's fairly simple for you to aim your gun and shoot me. But if I start chasing you and continuously fire my M-15 at you, you're going to have a hell of a time taking time out to stop, aim, and fire. Same principal applies with what we are doing to Al-Qaeda and terrorists around the world. LOL. How long did it take you to think of that bizarre analogy? Listen, security HAS improved in this country since 9/11, and that has probably made it harder for very sophisticated international terrorists that have the money, the connections, and the creativity and the drive to attempt an attack on the US. But if you think that Bush did more than a Dem admin would have done, you are crazy. Any American in office would have reacted to 9/11, hell, the plan that Bush put in place was authored by the Clinton admin. That's how Bush got it on the table so fast. Is it possible to have a terrorist attack in the US at any hour of any day of any week? Sure it is, get used to it. How far are you willing to go to protect everybody, all the time, anywhere? What freedoms are you willing to give up, how many countries are you willing to invade, how many US kids are you willing to sacrifice, what are you willing to do to our economy, how much fear are you willing to have your children live with, everyday? To protect us against a repeat of 2 attacks in the history of our country? What's your bottom line, my friend? John