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: maceng2 who wrote (949)	8/14/2006 9:06:56 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

For a start, having the media The media is not controlled by the gov't. .. checking baby milk for explosives is more or less admitting that we have allowed ourselves to be terrorised. ... We are acting hysterically. Checking baby milk brought on airplanes may be necessary. The goal should not be to pretend that nothing is wrong. When people are trying to blow up other people going about their business something is wrong. Certainly there's no need to panic or go into hysterics. But taking security precautions is not panic or hysteria per se. Nor does it mean we are terrorized. IMO beiong terrorized would be to think that my God, we have to satisfy these people's gripes against us! When I hear people (not talking about this thread right now) say we need to throw Israel to the wolves, or wean ourselves off of oil, withdraw from the ME, acknowledge our guilt, etc - iow appease our enemies - that I consider being terrorized. Here's an example of being terrorized - letting Muslim sensibilities govern how we do our business: telegraph.co.uk The fear of western media to publish the Danish cartoons while simultaneously publishing cartoons and other images insulting to Christians is an example of being terrorized. The ridiculous media show was put on just to boost Tony Blairs and George Bushes sagging popularity, I am fairly sure of that. I think you think that because you dislike them. Neither Bush nor Blair control the "media show". Past history has shown our respective intelligence services to be near useless I agree. ... any budding terror groups in the UK must be infiltrated several times over by now. Extremely doubtful. I think such infiltration would be very hard. Informants would be easier to acquire - and they learned of this recent plot from an informant. 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. Watched with the end of finding out the plot and preventing it from happening sure. But you and Sidney have said the gov't instigated the plot. 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. No, there's a big difference between observing a plot and running it. 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. Doesn't seem to be happening. The reasons for attacking Iraq are impossible to fathom to any sane person imho. Not in my opinion. It that were true, the support for the war wouldn't have been so overwhelming.