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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (207)	5/15/2007 3:38:15 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

"If you choose example three and retaliate against innocent emblematic targets of Islam you are A. Breaking the rules of your own game (fighting for principles of decency and justice). B. Targeting the innocent will rally the sideliners against you. Not just Muslims but other Western nations. C. You lose any moral ground you may have had to base your position on so what would you claim to be fighting for?" Dont disagree. So using chris' scenario of 20 simulsneous mall attacks killing mostly 400 women and children how do you respond both to bring criminals to justice and to deter this behaviour in the future. At some point american will support countering these actions---assuming this happens ever couple of weeks but use of extreme force. But i am not talking here about using this assysmetric advantage we have just to use it but to use it as a form of deterrence. Remember that during the cold war we would have obliterated russia if they attacked us with nukes and visa versa. Should we not have used such deterrence?