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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (11874)	2/14/2006 10:35:13 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 540743

We can certainly make assumptions and posit ideas about the impact of the terrorist threat compared to other armed conflicts the US has been in. Can the terrorists invade, seize and hold US territory against our armed forces? No. Can the terrorists destroy our government completely? No. Can the terrorists replace our government and eliminate the USA as it currently stands? No. Can the terrorists inflict damage on US interests at home and abroad? Yes, potentially serious but not fatal damage to the US as a nation. The worst case would be a tragic loss of life in one or more US cities. As far as how the whole country works, they can barely make a dent in terms of actual damage. When you put the threat in that light, you are combatting ideologically motivated groups who want to cause us harm, not fighting a war where either side can be occupied, overcome or effectively destroyed. Not the US and not "world terrorism" as it currently operates. A very serious threat indeed, but not mortal. Bin Laden will never invade Hawaii, which the Japanese would have had the Battle of Midway gone their way.

To: carranza2 who wrote (11874)	2/14/2006 10:41:12 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540743

If it had succeeded, perhaps your thinking might be different. No, it wouldn't. the fact that the operation was planned and thwarted suggests a level of threat which is significant. My quarrel is with those who think the threat is existential. I've argued that issue over and over and all I get back is that, yes, the bad guys could destroy the Library Tower and all its occupants. I can't get anyone to justify how that could reasonably be called existential. So, you're right that I'm ignorant about potential plans they have for such attacks but I disagree that my ignorance matters on what has been framed as a binary question--"9/11 changed everything." Such attacks even in groups, while terrible, are far from existential. "Significant" but not existential. I find the notion that they can knock us out risible. They cannot possibly have the wherewithal to do that, not in the next couple of generations, anyway. So that puts me in the "unserious" category.