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: epicure who wrote (127811)	7/27/2005 2:41:30 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793845

It seems to me the "systems" differ quite a bit. You obviously think the whole thing is a lot better organized than I do. If they had been better organized there would have been more attacks before now, and there would have been more successful attacks (imo). So while you can believe whatever you want, I do not agree with you. A group runs 80,000 men through training camps in Afghanistan, and you don't believe they are organized. There have been many more attacks than the scores that succeed, but they were just prevented, like the attempt to destroy the Eiffel Tower in the late 1980s, and the thrwarted ricin attack in Britain. There have been many others, which all got very brief coverage. One theme I've noticed in MSM coverage of both Palestinian and Al Qaeda terrorist attacks is to take a 'no harm, no foul' attitude towards all the many attacks that the security services prevent, as if attempted murder was fine and dandy, as long as it didn't succeed. By this logic, if our security services were brilliant enough to thwart all the plans, terrorism wouldn't exist at all.