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: Dale Baker who wrote (11875)	2/14/2006 10:41:43 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540748

A very serious threat indeed, but not mortal. I agree. Although I really don't feel competent to say, it seems unlikely that the level of threat has been exaggerated since serious and substantial damage can be done to our people, our economy and our assets without actually inflicting a mortal wound. The terrorist failures and their successes argue for a substantial effort on stopping them, one which requires some level of emphasis. Is it exaggerated? I can't say, but I doubt it.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11875)	2/14/2006 10:44:19 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540748

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. Thanks, Dale. Would you agree that the biggest threat from terrorism is our own over response to it? If we destroy everything that America used to stand for, which I believe we are well on the way to doing, the terrorists have indeed won.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11875)	2/14/2006 11:21:43 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 540748

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. I like this post. Particularly since the phrase "war on terror" was deliberately arrived at by the Bush folk to legitimate the invasion of Iraq as somehow connected to 9-11. When, of course, it wasn't. As we all know, the US does have a problem with jihadists but has addressed it very badly. And, in fact, has made it worse rather than better. I don't think it's an issue of whether it's given a top priority or second but properly defining the issue and addressing it successfully. The Bush folk have defined it wrong and made it worse.