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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (934)	8/14/2006 1:58:04 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I commend you on your restrained response, B. Whatever my objections to our actions in Iraq, terrorism is a terrible and unacceptable thing, and to call people who planned to murder thousands of innocents "misguided idealists" is apology taken to the extremes. UNderstanding is different from accepting. I believe it's in our best interest to try to grasp some of the culture and rationale behind terrorism, but only as a tool to defeat it, not excuse it.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (934)	8/14/2006 4:31:53 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

"False flag" terrorist operations..... en.wikipedia.org

To: Brumar89 who wrote (934)	8/14/2006 6:39:07 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

The term "idealist" means representing something better then it really is. It doesn't necessarily mean someone who only wishes or does good things. Hitler was an idealist, he believed fascism would fix most of the problems effecting his nation. Muslims regard themselves as a religious faith populating the whole world. Nationalism does not figure into it in any significant way. I am for winning any war that we get involved in. There are a few basic rules to follow that enhance ones chances of being on the winning side. In the same way there are another set of basic rules that enhance losing any war. The problem I have with Tony Blair and George Bush is they focus too much on losing our war with terrorism. For a start, having the media strike up a big circus for checking baby milk for explosives is more or less admitting that we have allowed ourselves to be terrorised. We are acting hysterically. The truth is there are lots of very dangerous materials out there that could be used against us but so far haven't. The ridiculous media show was put on just to boost Tony Blairs and George Bushes sagging popularity, I am fairly sure of that. Past history has shown our respective intelligence services to be near useless (or perhaps that is the light they prefer to be shown in) but even considering that, any budding terror groups in the UK must be infiltrated several times over by now. The number of potential recruits into the security services will be much larger then the number of recruits into any terrorist organisations. So YES, I am sure that the the latest plan to bomb airplanes on their way to the USA was watched very closely by our security services. If you read the news, that is exactly what is said. There were even arguments about how close to the actual bombing event should things be allowed to go. The difference between observing a set of developing events and suggesting a timetable is small. There is nothing insane about that suggestion as I see it. A timetable suggestion would probably be convenient to ensure the appropriate security people are in place to thwart such a plan set in motion. I openly supported the attack on Afghanistan after 911. OBL was in Afghanistan and his organisation definitely needed to be smashed. The Taliban were full enough of themselves to think they could win a conventional war against the USA and Allies. It was a risky venture though because of the location and climate challenges. There result was favorable for the USA. I was not enthusiastic about keeping a garrison in Afghanistan. That nation has always been warlike and there are hundreds of thousands of potential armed guerrillas in the mountains of that region. Any war of attrition will only result in an unpopular war with the voting public. Just because of the casualties if nothing else. The reasons for attacking Iraq are impossible to fathom to any sane person imho. The connection with 911 and Iraq has yet to be explained.