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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (949)	5/25/2007 3:28:18 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

"For somebody who prides himself on nuance, judging Al Qaeda by the extent of its conventional military arms is very...un-nuanced." Of course, and very astute of you to point that out. Let me remind you, however, that my reply was in response to the fear mongered statement that Al Queda was a threat to take over the world. When it comes to aggressive military action to overcome the defenses of a nation, particularly a first world nation with the military assets of the US, it's ALL about conventional miliary weapons. That's because a defensive war is won with conventional weapons. It's only an occupation that can be lost with superior weaponry through the death of a thousand cuts. But that raises a very serious question; if "judging Al Qaeda by the extent of its conventional military arms is very...un-nuanced," then what metrics would you use to judge the threat of Al Queda...or Al Queda types of organizations? Hawk was worried that they were learning how to fight conventionally in Afghanistan, as if that was the major threat. Clearly that was no threat at all but they do pose a threat. I know where I think their major threat exists, but what do you think? Because that's a question must be answered before we can decide how to effectively fight them. Ed